# Nice guys are not nice or moral



## ScrambledEggs

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.


----------



## Wolf1974

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


----------



## PBear

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_


----------



## Wolf1974

PBear said:


> 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_


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


----------



## PBear

Wolf1974 said:


> 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


. I was typing as you posted, so I was responding to the original post. So yes, I agree with you too. 

C
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ScrambledEggs

Wolf1974 said:


> 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



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.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

Wolf1974 said:


> 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



But I am not necessarily talking about being a doormat, I am talking the attitude that mistakingly overvalues the willingness to sacrifice for the relationship. Which arguably leads to being a dormant. As I said, being a decent person is just a place to start in a relationship, it does not make it work.


----------



## LongWalk

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?


----------



## greenfern

ScrambledEggs said:


> But I am not necessarily talking about being a doormat, I am talking the attitude that mistakingly overvalues the willingness to sacrifice for the relationship. Which arguably leads to being a dormant. As I said, being a decent person is just a place to start in a relationship, it does not make it work.


:iagree:


----------



## EleGirl

Wolf1974 said:


> 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


The problem with a term like "Nice Guy" is that different people mean different things when they use the term.

You are a guy who is nice. 

The term "Nice Guy" often used in respect to a guy who uses outwardly 'nice' behaviors to disguise passive aggressive behavior. Like the guy (or gal) who does everything for their spouse, telling their spouse that they do it out of love. Btu really they harbor great resentment and use the "nice guy" act to reinforce the resentment. This is a covert contract, and as such it's destructive.

A doormat is not a nice guy. This describes a person who sets no boundaries and thus allows people to walk all over him/her. It falls into the "we teach people how to treat us" category.

There are a lot of gals who are very nice people (along the lines that you are a guy who is nice). Since these women are not knock down gorgeous, most men don't want to date them or marry them. These women would make very good wives. They are passed up as well.

This is hardly only a men's issue.


----------



## Entropy3000

EleGirl said:


> The problem with a term like "Nice Guy" is that different people mean different things when they use the term.
> 
> You are a guy who is nice.
> 
> The term "Nice Guy" often used in respect to a guy who uses outwardly 'nice' behaviors to disguise passive aggressive behavior. Like the guy (or gal) who does everything for their spouse, telling their spouse that they do it out of love. Btu really they harbor great resentment and use the "nice guy" act to reinforce the resentment. This is a covert contract, and as such it's destructive.
> 
> A doormat is not a nice guy. This describes a person who sets no boundaries and thus allows people to walk all over him/her. It falls into the "we teach people how to treat us" category.
> 
> There are a lot of gals who are very nice people (along the lines that you are a guy who is nice). Since these women are not knock down gorgeous, most men don't want to date them or marry them. These women would make very good wives. They are passed up as well.
> 
> This is hardly only a men's issue.


:iagree:

Being a caring loving human being is essential. It is required. No amount of sexy or any attraction traits mean anything in the long run without it. If you are focused on ONSs or just having a facad then it matters a lot less.

So lets not confuse being a genuinely good human being with being "Nice" in the TAM context. That is something else entirely.

And I totally agree this is NOT gender specific. Maybe somebody wants a "trophy" wife and maybe some women want a "trophy" husband. Whatever. The hope is that a quality person will be desired by another quality person. The problem as I see it is that life intervenes sometimes. Most of us are less well equipped knowledge wise and miss some important things. We get very distracted trying to survive. Or we get very distracted chasing some unrealisitc holy grail. Too wrapped in ourselves one way or another. Kids happen. Tragedy happens. We loose our way. Selfishness. And all the rest. It happens. To good people. We would hope a marriage site could help get us on track and perhaps it can. But it comes with its own distractions.


----------



## EleGirl

Entropy3000 said:


> :iagree:
> 
> Being a caring loving human being is essential. It is required. No amount of sexy or any attraction traits means anything in the long run without it. If you are focused on ONSs or just having a facad then it matters a lot less.
> 
> *So lets not confused being a genuinely good human being with being "Nice" in the TAM context*. That is something else entirely.


:iagree: Well put!


----------



## Sunburn

Does this mean the modern woman should be the one on her knees proposing with the keys to a new Ferrari as a token of her love?


----------



## Thundarr

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.


----------



## EleGirl

Sunburn said:


> Does this mean the modern woman should be the one on her knees proposing with the keys to a new Ferrari as a token of her love?


This topic has nothing to do with what you posted here.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Thundarr said:


> 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.


----------



## Wolf1974

EleGirl said:


> The problem with a term like "Nice Guy" is that different people mean different things when they use the term.
> 
> You are a guy who is nice.
> 
> The term "Nice Guy" often used in respect to a guy who uses outwardly 'nice' behaviors to disguise passive aggressive behavior. Like the guy (or gal) who does everything for their spouse, telling their spouse that they do it out of love. Btu really they harbor great resentment and use the "nice guy" act to reinforce the resentment. This is a covert contract, and as such it's destructive.
> 
> A doormat is not a nice guy. This describes a person who sets no boundaries and thus allows people to walk all over him/her. It falls into the "we teach people how to treat us" category.
> 
> There are a lot of gals who are very nice people (along the lines that you are a guy who is nice). Since these women are not knock down gorgeous, most men don't want to date them or marry them. These women would make very good wives. They are passed up as well.
> 
> This is hardly only a men's issue.


While I don't disagree with your description it still seems like this is a TAM construct. I the REal world, least where I am, nice guy is the correct term. I am a nice guy. My female friends area always asking if I know any nice single guys. I want my daughters to marry nice guys. I never heard of a negative version of the "nice guy" till I got here. By definition anyone who is nice wouldn't be passive agreesive so they shouldn't be termed nice. More like ass


----------



## EleGirl

2galsmom said:


> 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. 


2galsmom said:


> 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.


2galsmom said:


> 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.


2galsmom said:


> 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.)


----------



## PieceOfSky

*Re: Re: Nice guys are not nice or moral*



2galsmom said:


> Isn't the "nice" guy in No More Mr. Nice Guy extremely passive aggressive?


From what I read in ebp123's recent thread here, and a quick glance at where I had left off in that book, I think you are correct.

The first time I cracked open that book, I read only enough to see the Mr. Nice Guy had poor boundaries and was disappointed and hurt when he got walked all over. (Felt finally I was learning something relevant that I could change!)

My more recent glance at Glover 's book revealed he presents the passive aggressive side of his Mr. Nice Guy™ only after presenting non-passive-aggressive but regrettable traits/experiences "truly nice" guys might also share. (Not finding the p.a. stuff resonating with how I see myself, but then again what p.a. person would?! I'm going to take my therapists word for it that I am not significantly p.a. )

I'm finding the author's attempt to coin a new term here isn't working for my brain. I wish the terminology was clearer and universally understood.

Looks to me there are two kinds of folks to consider here. Though they share some traits (poor boundaries and communication, for instance), there are some essential differences :

1) nice gals/guys (the decent kind, though feeling unhappy)
2) Ms./Mrs./Miss Nice Gal™ and Mr. Nice Guy™ (includes p.a. behaviors)

Haven't made the time yet to read the book closely enough to say for sure.




> Aggression is aggression and passive aggression is not nice.


Absolutely right. Messing with someone's mind and life, even when done so less than consciously, is far from nice, and potentially horribly damaging.


----------



## Sunburn

EleGirl said:


> This topic has nothing to do with what you posted here.



I think a few people get it. It doesn't apply to the main theme of the post but to some things that are inferred.


----------



## Thundarr

Wolf1974 said:


> While I don't disagree with your description it still seems like this is a TAM construct. I the REal world, least where I am, nice guy is the correct term. I am a nice guy. My female friends area always asking if I know any nice single guys. I want my daughters to marry nice guys. I never heard of a negative version of the "nice guy" till I got here. By definition anyone who is nice wouldn't be passive agreesive so they shouldn't be termed nice. More like ass


Nice guy syndrome is a specific ideal about misguiding niceness. Amazon book description explains it simply.

Originally published as an e-book that became a controversial media phenomenon, No More Mr. Nice Guy! landed its author, a certified marriage and family therapist, on The O'Reilly Factor and the Rush Limbaugh radio show. Dr. Robert Glover has dubbed the "Nice Guy Syndrome" trying too hard to please others while neglecting one's own needs, thus causing unhappiness and resentfulness. It's no wonder that unfulfilled Nice Guys lash out in frustration at their loved ones, claims Dr. Glover. He explains how they can stop seeking approval and start getting what they want in life, by presenting the information and tools to help them ensure their needs are met, to express their emotions, to have a satisfying sex life, to embrace their masculinity and form meaningful relationships with other men, and to live up to their creative potential.


----------



## Forest

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".


----------



## Forest

2galsmom said:


> 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.


----------



## ocotillo

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.


----------



## jorgegene

This is all way confusing and complicated.

Now, I'm not even sure if I'm a 'nice guy' or not........


----------



## nice777guy

Thundarr said:


> Nice guy syndrome is a specific ideal about misguiding niceness. Amazon book description explains it simply.
> 
> Originally published as an e-book that became a controversial media phenomenon, No More Mr. Nice Guy! landed its author, a certified marriage and family therapist, on The O'Reilly Factor and the Rush Limbaugh radio show. Dr. Robert Glover has dubbed the "Nice Guy Syndrome" *trying too hard to please others while neglecting one's own needs, thus causing unhappiness and resentfulness.* It's no wonder that unfulfilled Nice Guys lash out in frustration at their loved ones, claims Dr. Glover. He explains how they can stop seeking approval and start getting what they want in life, by presenting the information and tools to help them ensure their needs are met, to express their emotions, to have a satisfying sex life, to embrace their masculinity and form meaningful relationships with other men, and to live up to their creative potential.


The TAM definition of "Nice Guy" is driven by Glover's book.

The NMMNG book - to me - is nothing more than "Co-Dependent No More" with a masculine slant.


----------



## PieceOfSky

Forest said:


> 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".







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.


----------



## nice777guy

PieceOfSky said:


> 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.


Other than this message board, I've not heard the term used.

I had to request Barnes and Noble to order the NMMNG book for me as they didn't have a copy in the store.


----------



## YupItsMe

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.


----------



## Trickster

jorgegene said:


> This is all way confusing and complicated.
> 
> Now, I'm not even sure if I'm a 'nice guy' or not........


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?


----------



## Thundarr

Forest said:


> 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".


the "Nice Guy Syndrome" trying too hard to please others while neglecting one's own needs, thus causing unhappiness and resentfulness.

That's merely labeling a character trait that a lot of men and women share. It's really a gender neutral concept but the audience of the book was geared toward men.


----------



## Forest

2galsmom said:


> You simply proved our point Forest.
> 
> The allegedly "nice" people do not like to be confronted directly or disagreed with, it does not give them that "approval" they seek.
> 
> In fact, it is perfectly acceptable to make wonderful posituve generalizations about people who call themselves "nice" but aren't, right? I daresay you would not have made the comment you did if this was a Tribute Thread to Nice People Thread.
> 
> Would you have stepped in to disagree then and said No! Don't make generalizations. Coming in and accusing people of making generalizations is not an automatic "argument winner."
> 
> Not all who consider themselves "nice people" are not nice and people should be warned NOT to accept making assumptions of these people and their motives and character because they use the word nice and try to attach the traditional definition and connotations of the term to themselves, thank you TAM!


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?


----------



## nice777guy

Trickster said:


> 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?


In Glover's book - yes, yes and yes.

Many flaws - including not being straightforward and willing to fight for you own wants and needs. Putting the needs of others above yours - then resenting life because you don't get what you need.

Trying to compensate for a lack of self esteem by being "nice" - because of course that's the only way someone will want to be with them. (When in reality, people respect and admire confident people)

Hidden agenda - "let me give you a backrub and cook you dinner - let's make tonight about you!" Then later - when she's asleep "Wow! Look at all I did for her and we didn't even have sex!!!" 

Then SHE can't figure out what his problem is the next morning when his resentment and dysfunction shines through.


----------



## YupItsMe

nice777guy said:


> In Glover's book - yes, yes and yes.
> 
> Many flaws - including not being straightforward and willing to fight for you own wants and needs. Putting the needs of others above yours - then resenting life because you don't get what you need.
> 
> Trying to compensate for a lack of self esteem by being "nice" - because of course that's the only way someone will want to be with them. (When in reality, people respect and admire confident people)
> 
> Hidden agenda - "let me give you a backrub and cook you dinner - let's make tonight about you!" Then later - when she's asleep "Wow! Look at all I did for her and we didn't even have sex!!!" Then SHE can't figure out what his problem - he was SO nice last night - but the next day the resentment and dysfunction start shining through.


The first time I agree with you 100% on anything. :iagree: Nailed it.

That is why your username still makes me want to vomit. I need meds when I read it. LOL


----------



## ocotillo

Sunburn said:


> Does this mean the modern woman should be the one on her knees proposing with the keys to a new Ferrari as a token of her love?


I think that crosses the line into hyperbole (Maybe that was your intention) but I would agree that much of traditional Western "Courtship" deportment and conduct have their roots in what is arguably "Nice guy" behavior.


----------



## nice777guy

YupItsMe said:


> The first time I agree with you 100% on anything. :iagree: Nailed it.
> 
> That is why your username still makes me want to vomit. I need meds when I read it. LOL


Picked the name before I had read anything in the Men's Clubhouse.

Almost glad to hear that I have that affect on you!

:smthumbup:

Now excuse me - was reminded in another thread that I spend way too much time here - so I'm gonna go get some $hit done in the real world!


----------



## YupItsMe

nice777guy said:


> Picked the name before I had read anything in the Men's Clubhouse.
> 
> Almost glad to hear that I have that affect on you!
> 
> :smthumbup:
> 
> Now excuse me - was reminded in another thread that I spend way too much time here - so I'm gonna go get some $hit done in the real world!


Not nice! I feel your pain though. Good sport. My BIL is a "nice guy" I wish I could tell him that bull**** is see through. 

Have your name changed to bad azz. No hidden agenda. Then we can be pals. :rofl:


----------



## Trickster

nice777guy said:


> In Glover's book - yes, yes and yes.
> 
> Many flaws - including not being straightforward and willing to fight for you own wants and needs. Putting the needs of others above yours - then resenting life because you don't get what you need.
> 
> Trying to compensate for a lack of self esteem by being "nice" - because of course that's the only way someone will want to be with them. (When in reality, people respect and admire confident people)
> 
> Hidden agenda - "let me give you a backrub and cook you dinner - let's make tonight about you!" Then later - when she's asleep "Wow! Look at all I did for her and we didn't even have sex!!!"
> 
> Then SHE can't figure out what his problem is the next morning when his resentment and dysfunction shines through.




Yes, this was me... I would do a lot more and when sex didn't happen, I was grumpy. It's funny now that I stopped cooking like before, my wife is the grumpy one who gives me the silent treatment...

Maybe I should read Glovers book.

Being nice shouldn't be an insult. 

Couple weeks ago, there was a stalled car in the left turn lane. Several "nice" guys got out to help push the car into the parking lot. I don't think any of us had a hidden agenda. We were just being nice. It felt good...


----------



## TBT

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.


----------



## nice777guy

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.


----------



## nice777guy

YupItsMe said:


> Not nice! I feel your pain though. Good sport. My BIL is a "nice guy" I wish I could tell him that bull**** is see through.
> 
> Have your name changed to bad azz. No hidden agenda. Then we can be pals. :rofl:


Have thought about the name change, but it seems like a "nice guy" or co-dependent move. Doing something superficial so the "cool alpha guys" might "like me" more. I'm good.

Also - my Ex found me posting on this site during our divorce. She threatened to "use" it against me, claiming I had been slandering her. My first instinct was to start deleting things. Then - I went back to some of my older posts - and realized how much of a story I've told here. And it was all true. So I came to the conclusion that what I've written will stand - along with the name.


----------



## arbitrator

*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!*


----------



## PieceOfSky

Forest said:


> 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.







Again, please clarify the generalizations you see being made.



Do you agree there are the two kinds of folks I listed before:



1) the nice/helpful person who may or may not maintain healthy boundaries



2) the passive aaggressive who sometimes does nice/helpful things -) e.g. the NMMNG type aka "Gloverian Nice Guy"



I don't see a generalization being made. Rather, I see a definition being declared, but with a confusing choice of label that makes it difficult to see there are the two very distinct types.



Its not a joke some are in on and others are not. It is a definition documented in a book and discussed at length on TAM.


----------



## PieceOfSky

nice777guy said:


> Have thought about the name change, but it seems like a "nice guy" or co-dependent move. Doing something superficial so the "cool alpha guys" might "like me" more. I'm good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also - my Ex found me posting on this site during our divorce. She threatened to "use" it against me, claiming I had been slandering her. My first instinct was to start deleting things. Then - I went back to some of my older posts - and realized how much of a story I've told here. And it was all true. So I came to the conclusion that what I've written will stand - along with the name.







I can relate. I had no idea abbreviations and POS was a "thing" here when I picked my handle. 



Though I am not happy with everything I have typed at TAM, I have deleted only a handful of posts due to fairly quick posters-regret. But to delete this arc of my life story would seem like an attempt to disown part of my life, which would be counterproductive at best.



(May change the name though. Just to set a new direction.)


----------



## ScrambledEggs

YupItsMe said:


> 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.


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...


----------



## Forest

PieceOfSky said:


> Again, please clarify the generalizations you see being made.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree there are the two kinds of folks I listed before:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) the nice/helpful person who may or may not maintain healthy boundaries
> 
> 
> 
> 2) the passive aaggressive who sometimes does nice/helpful things -) e.g. the NMMNG type aka "Gloverian Nice Guy"
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see a generalization being made. Rather, I see a definition being declared, but with a confusing choice of label that makes it difficult to see there are the two very distinct types.
> 
> 
> 
> Its not a joke some are in on and others are not. It is a definition documented in a book and discussed at length on TAM.



Look at the title of the thread. Is that NOT clearly a broad generalization for you? Does it actually have to be explained to you?

The fact that some nobody wrote a book to capitalize on the term Nice Guy, and make himself money means nothing. No one should be expected to have read this book, or be intimate with its outline.

This is a message board, not a private clique for a handful of people to assume everyone buys into their schtick. You're fine using the terms because you believe in them.

I'm sure you wouldn't say things about "tall guys" "fat guys" loud women" etc. 

Its low brow, scattershot, nonsense blasting away at anyone you feel like doesn't fit you idea of acceptable.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

@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.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

nice777guy said:


> Have thought about the name change, but it seems like a "nice guy" or co-dependent move. Doing something superficial so the "cool alpha guys" might "like me" more. I'm good.
> 
> Also - my Ex found me posting on this site during our divorce. She threatened to "use" it against me, claiming I had been slandering her. My first instinct was to start deleting things. Then - I went back to some of my older posts - and realized how much of a story I've told here. And it was all true. So I came to the conclusion that what I've written will stand - along with the name.


Lol, how do you slander someone anonymously? (rhetorical)


----------



## southbound

ScrambledEggs said:


> 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.


----------



## Forest

ScrambledEggs said:


> @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?


----------



## 2ntnuf

ScrambledEggs said:


> @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.


Can you expand on this a bit? I get the sense that you think the woman in a nice guy's life doesn't value what he does for her, so he increases the nice activities and gestures to try to affect a change in her attitude about him. Is that what you mean?


----------



## PieceOfSky

Forest said:


> Does it actually have to be explained to you?




Lol. Yet I kept reading.





> You're fine using the terms because you believe in them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you wouldn't say things about "tall guys" "fat guys" loud women" etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its low brow, scattershot, nonsense blasting away at anyone you feel like doesn't fit you idea of acceptable.





Yep. You know me better than I or what I said in my earlier posts that directly contradict those assertions you just made.





I suggest you take a different approach next time if you want to get your point across to me.


----------



## Forest

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.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

Forest said:


> 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?


I have never read the book in question. Where did you get that idea? I thought you where opposed to generalizing?

So your issue is with my title. If I had said "Nice guys _Can_ be not nice or moral" you would be totally cool with this as you have not addressed my actual point in any way. 

Since subjects are suppose to be a generalization of the content of a post, I find your objections to be hilarious.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

southbound said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## Forest

ScrambledEggs said:


> I have never read the book in question. Where did you get that idea? I thought you where opposed to generalizing?
> 
> So your issue is with my title. If I had said "Nice guys _Can_ be not nice or moral" you would be totally cool with this as you have not addressed my actual point in any way.
> 
> Since subjects are suppose to be a generalization of the content of a post, I find your objections to be hilarious.


If you have not read the book, I apologize. I thought the only reason you would issue such a blanket condemnation of a huge part of society was due to the influence of that book. So I'd have to say your comment still is a generalization.

Had your title been "can be" etc, I'd have had no problem. You presented it as an absolute.


----------



## jld

Forest said:


> 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?


----------



## Forest

jld said:


> The bolded does not sound bad, does it?


As long as you are not nice about it. :lol:

Seriously, the tirade is just that I've known all kinds of men that are strong, confident, no BS men. Most are nice. Suggesting that the last quality makes them an immoral loser that can't be trusted to treat a woman properly is offensive.

Repeat anything enough and some people will tend to believe it.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

Forest said:


> If you have not read the book, I apologize. I thought the only reason you would issue such a blanket condemnation of a huge part of society was due to the influence of that book. So I'd have to say your comment still is a generalization.
> 
> Had your title been "can be" etc, I'd have had no problem. You presented it as an absolute.


Well the subject might have been provocative but the idea I presented in the post was not a generalization.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

2ntnuf said:


> Can you expand on this a bit? I get the sense that you think the woman in a nice guy's life doesn't value what he does for her, so he increases the nice activities and gestures to try to affect a change in her attitude about him. Is that what you mean?


My point is that many 'Nice Guys" believe their nicety should win them more credit than it does. And I mean this even for those that are not very passive aggressive about it. 

The "nice guy" provider archetype got us women 100 years ago because women needed a man to not die or have a horrible life. The "nice Guy" depended on an awful world to drive women to him. Now that women don't need us, more is needed. I think a lot of men are still caught up on the idea that being a good person and a provider is enough for a marriage today--It's not for many women. They have their own economic power and the awareness of a social safety net.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

LongWalk said:


> 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?


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.


----------



## Holland

ScrambledEggs said:


> My point is that many 'Nice Guys" believe their nicety should win them more credit than it does. And I mean this even for those that are not very passive aggressive about it.
> 
> The "nice guy" provider archetype got us women 100 years ago because women needed a man to not die or have a horrible life. The "nice Guy" depended on an awful world to drive women to him. Now that women don't need us, more is needed. I think a lot of men are still caught up on the idea that being a good person and a provider is enough for a marriage today--It's not for many women. They have their own economic power and the awareness of a social safety net.


I agree with this. Have not read any of the books spouted around here, have no intention of doing so and do not buy into all the nice guy talk.

Bottom line in my world is that women have moved forward in leaps and bounds in recent history and it has caught a certain section of the male population off guard. I feel for a lot of men, they are living in the past and expecting it to work. 

All the women in my life are prime examples of confident, modern women. They love men but are more than capable of surviving and supporting themselves. For me personally, a man has to add something extra to my life, he has to be evolved enough to treat me as his equal. I would not settle for a man that rested on his laurels and thought that I needed him to breath and think.


----------



## 2ntnuf

ScrambledEggs said:


> My point is that many 'Nice Guys" believe their nicety should win them more credit than it does. And I mean this even for those that are not very passive aggressive about it.
> 
> The "nice guy" provider archetype got us women 100 years ago because women needed a man to not die or have a horrible life. The "nice Guy" depended on an awful world to drive women to him. Now that women don't need us, more is needed. I think a lot of men are still caught up on the idea that being a good person and a provider is enough for a marriage today--It's not for many women. They have their own economic power and the awareness of a social safety net.


I think you are saying that many men believe that having a decent job and having some manners are enough to secure and keep a wife? Not sure, but I'm doing my best to understand.

I think that is true when men are young, more than when they mature. I don't mean a guy has to be in his seventies or something. It's less an issue of age than understanding and behavior modification, I think.

It's true, in 1914, women held less jobs than men and if they did hold them, they likely were paid less. I think things started changing with world war 2. Women showed their capabilities by running the equipment and doing the work that men did, while they were off fighting a war. Without women doing that, we likely would not have been the formidable foe, we were. 

After WWII, life was different and things started changing, because now there was proof of the abilities of women through financial gain. Believe me, there was financial gain for companies, even in wartime. 

I truly don't know why exactly, this did not occur sooner. While my grandparents were 12 and 13 on mum's side, and 29 and 18 on dad's side in 1914, I never knew any of them well enough, or was even old enough to have been exposed to what might cause those thoughts to enter my mind, that would pose the questions. 

However, they seemed quite happy. My dad's parents seemed most happy. Don't know why that is. They weren't as educated. They had much less money. I only write that for thought and consideration, not to shame or demean. It may have little to do with their happiness. 

My dad's parents were busy at home and had little time to spend reflecting. Probably, the time they had was spent with their children. That's what I remember. Although, they did have five children, so they must have had some free time. Ha! 

My mum's parents had four children, slept in separate bedrooms when I knew them, lived in the same house, but did not communicate much in front of my sister and I. We are the youngest and really a product of a different family, since my two older brothers are more than ten years older. 

I want to conclude that it's personalities that cause the rifts. I want to say it's how individuals learned and grew in their lives. I think today's perceptions are just a product of folks wanting different things. So many women are still happy staying at home, it can't be completely true in all circumstances. We all have different goals. 

I'm scratching my head to figure this out. It's not coming easily for me. I don't think you've quite hit the nail on the head with your premise. I think women are at such an early stage of this, they are looking for ways they are not treated well, instead of accepting that everyone is different. I think it's a question of women accepting who they are as individuals and then conveying that to men through time and choices. 

I could be way off base here. Sorry if anything I said was hurtful. I didn't mean any of it to be. I just can't wrap my head around this, very well. 

Thanks for your explanation.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

2ntnuf said:


> I truly don't know why exactly, this did not occur sooner.


Birth control.

Prior to the middle of this century it did not exist. Women needed men to survive, having a men meant sex, which then meant babies--lots of them. All that time spent in maternity and raising toddlers made it challenging to acquire economic power or a career. I think this is more significant than just getting paid less. 

Now women control when and if they get pregnant like never before in history so they can pursue much more paths and timetables.

I also don't believe this explains everything about relationships but I don think the "nice guy" syndrome I described lives on men into and past middle age. 

Thanks for the comments.


----------



## 2ntnuf

ScrambledEggs said:


> Birth control.
> 
> Prior to the middle of this century it did not exist. Women needed mean to survive, having a men meant sex, which then meant babies--lots of them. All that time spent in maternity and raising toddlers made it challenging to acquire economic power or a career. I think this is more significant than just getting paid less.
> 
> Now women control when and if they get pregnant like never before in history so they can pursue much more paths and timetables.
> 
> I also don't believe this explains everything about relationships but I don think the "nice guy" syndrome I described lives on men into and past middle age.
> 
> Thanks for the comments.


Seems like the root cause is that biologically we are different. Technology changed that so that women could satisfy sexual urges without as much risk of pregnancy. However, our processes of reasoning have not changed in like manner. Seems reasonable to conclude that is the case. I hope.


----------



## PieceOfSky

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.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Not liked for the lack of affection not returning, but for the previous thoughts, Sky.


----------



## Happyfamily

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.


----------



## Happyfamily

ScrambledEggs said:


> They have their own economic power


This assertion promotes numerous destructive myths.

The main impediment to leaving marriage in the past was legal, social, and religious mores against it. It wasn't because women could not work. 

But in the event of divorce a woman has actually LOST a power that they once had: that of alimony. In the past, a divorce generally granted custody of the children along with not just child support but alimony. Alimony actually provided a strong economic incentive for men to stay in the marriage. You could not afford to take on a new family after divorce because you still had financial obligation to your original family. 

The "economic power" myth pretends that women are not entitled to 50% of the marital assets. It doesn't matter who makes the money. I don't work, but I'm actually in charge of all the finances. Feminists want to pose me as a victim of my husband's "economic power". 

There is a whole web of interwoven fallacies and myth peddling that support gender wars nowadays, and I don't buy into any of it.


----------



## jld

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.


----------



## Forest

Happyfamily said:


> 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.


----------



## Happyfamily

jld said:


> 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.


----------



## jld

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.


----------



## 2ntnuf

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.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

Happyfamily said:


> 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.


I think this misses my point which is being overly complicated. I did not attempt a critique on history, I merely pointing out that because things have changed(and how they changed), what is required to keep a women interested has also changed. While being a good provider may not have been attractive in and of itself, it was valued more than it is today.



Happyfamily said:


> 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...


Yup



Happyfamily said:


> 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 guess you could put it that way, but then I did not attempt to critique or defend feminism...



Happyfamily said:


> 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.


You lost me here. I made it pretty clear that I did not attempt to define everyman and specifically not every 'nice guy'. Clearly an "archetypal leader of the past" --whatever that is-- has more going for him than the specific type of "nice guy" I described. Moreover, where does the "girly image" come from? not from me. I even likened my nice guy to a "white night".



Happyfamily said:


> 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:
> 
> 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.


Sure women have worked hard for and there have been rich and powerful women through history. I point again to my statement from my original post, "There are all kinds of men and women that don't fit this,". I said that many women, most even,could not accumulate a lot of economic power. Why they could not accumulate that power is, as far as I am concerned, irrelevant to this post. 



Happyfamily said:


> 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.


I think I understand history very well. 

Thanks for your comments. You have said a lot of smart things here and I am sure you know you stuff, though I am having trouble connecting it to the point I made. Maybe I just was not very clear.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

Happyfamily said:


> This assertion promotes numerous destructive myths.
> 
> The main impediment to leaving marriage in the past was legal, social, and religious mores against it. It wasn't because women could not work.


All that was necessary for my point is the fact that women did not have a lot of economic power. Why or how was irrelevant to my point. If the cause was "legal, social, and religious mores" against being single or divorce, then let that be the cause behind women not having economic power. I don't really care, its just a fact that they did not have it must have weighed heavily on their decision to get married and stay married. I'd say the notion of a women leaving her hard working farmer husband in the 1870's because he is boring is ridiculous. I am sure if probably happened in many exceptions but not as a rule.



Happyfamily said:


> But in the event of divorce a woman has actually LOST a power that they once had: that of alimony. In the past, a divorce generally granted custody of the children along with not just child support but alimony. Alimony actually provided a strong economic incentive for men to stay in the marriage. You could not afford to take on a new family after divorce because you still had financial obligation to your original family.
> 
> The "economic power" myth pretends that women are not entitled to 50% of the marital assets. It doesn't matter who makes the money. I don't work, but I'm actually in charge of all the finances. Feminists want to pose me as a victim of my husband's "economic power".


Well said. Though I have no idea how this relates to my original post.


----------



## Happyfamily

ScrambledEggs said:


> All that was necessary for my point is the fact that women did not have a lot of economic power.


I'm glad we can talk this out reasonably and I thank you for understanding that much of what I said has to do with the way things are tritely framed nowadays in the politically correct culture.

What does "economic power" mean? This term is bandied about by different people with very different meanings. In my economics classes it meant the amount of purchasing capacity in terms of goods and services for some item. Like a dollar. In a culture where marriage is legally a 50-50 ownership of resources, both husband and wife have equal economic power. 

In feminist circles it is a manipulative term that doesn't really have sensible meaning. If a man has a job he is said to have "economic power" whereas his wife has none. That's ridiculous. She is equal owner of marital assets including the husband's income. 

Every conclusion stemming from this myth is bankrupt. 

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.


----------



## 2ntnuf

> 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.


----------



## EleGirl

ScrambledEggs said:


> All that was necessary for my point is the fact that women did not have a lot of economic power. Why or how was irrelevant to my point. If the cause was "legal, social, and religious mores" against being single or divorce, then let that be the cause behind women not having economic power. I don't really care, its just a fact that they did not have it must have weighed heavily on their decision to get married and stay married. I'd say the notion of a women leaving her hard working farmer husband in the 1870's because he is boring is ridiculous. I am sure if probably happened in many exceptions but not as a rule.


I agree. Women's economic power in the past was mostly tied to the man she married. 

Generally if a woman did not marry her financial pictures was pretty bleak (unless she had a good inheritance), she could not find work that paid equal to what men were paid. 

Widowed women were often left with nothing, not having a husband to support her and the children, she could not get work that well.


----------



## Holland

Happyfamily said:


> I'm glad we can talk this out reasonably and I thank you for understanding that much of what I said has to do with the way things are tritely framed nowadays in the politically correct culture.
> 
> What does "economic power" mean? This term is bandied about by different people with very different meanings. In my economics classes it meant the amount of purchasing capacity in terms of goods and services for some item. Like a dollar. In a culture where marriage is legally a 50-50 ownership of resources, both husband and wife have equal economic power.
> 
> *In feminist circles it is a manipulative term that doesn't really have sensible meaning. * If a man has a job he is said to have "economic power" whereas his wife has none. That's ridiculous. She is equal owner of marital assets including the husband's income.
> 
> Every conclusion stemming from this myth is bankrupt.
> 
> 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.


It means that these days women have more opportunity to work and support themselves. Women have better access to education and career advancement than a few decades ago. They do not have to be tied to a man to have financial security. This is a shift in societal thinking as well as daily practical life. 

It isn't a manipulative term, you are very anti Feminism that is your right but many of us are greatful for the women of the past that gave us better rights, a voice and choices in life.

Feminism means that women have choices, many more now than ever before and for that I am greatful. Feminism is not supposed to be manipulative, the core of it is about choice, freedom and equality of life standards. 

My understanding of the OP is that this recently found economic autonomy means that today's woman is looking for more in a man than simply a financial provider as we can do that ourselves. It means that todays man has to, in some cases, become more evolved in order to keep up and present himself as a worthwhile mate in life. Feminism does not mean anti men, it means pro equality.


----------



## Caribbean Man

I've often heard the " _feminism was responsible for women being in the workplace _" being bandied about here on TAM and I wonder if people are aware of the actual history.

Feminism is no more responsible for women in the workplace en masse than the " _ Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen _" [ charter of the rights of man and citizens ] was responsible for the end of slavery in the West.

Capitalism and the Industrial revolution was responsible for both.

Feminism was responsible for improving the living conditions of girls and women, largely in Western societies. The right to vote , equal access to educational opportunities. But all of these things must be taken in the correct historical context in order to understand the exact role the feminist movement played.


----------



## Caribbean Man

ScrambledEggs said:


> The "nice guy" provider archetype got us women 100 years ago because women needed a man to not die or have a horrible life. The "nice Guy" depended on an awful world to drive women to him. Now that women don't need us, more is needed.


I don't think I agree with this.
And I think history doesn't really support your idea either.

There never was and never will be a time where women don't need men and men won't need women as a collective gender.

Women and men have always needed each other for survival of the species.

What has happened is that gender roles have evolved , both male and female species have also evolved. 
People no longer need to have large families in order to increase their chances of survival because of advances in medicine, economics and so forth.

If women no longer needed a man to provide for her and kids , then the state would have no need to enforce alimony and child support in the case of divorce.


----------



## ocotillo

ScrambledEggs said:


> ....consider that you are basically wishing that women will be coerced into your arms by an awful world.


Couldn't what you have expressed above just as easily be restated as simply a male desire to be appreciated, wanted and needed? Isn't that, at its heart, a basic human inclination that is not really gender specific at all? 

As a distaff corollary, consider the female aversion to pornography here on TAM: When you take all the various objections to visual erotica in any form and distill them, doesn't it ultimately come to down to a perceived assault on a woman's innate sense of uniqueness and worth? 

Is that wrong? Is it a moral flaw that a great many women want to feel special for who they truly are? I would say, "No" unequivocally. That is simply a female manifestation of a basic human need.

I think if we're going to make the argument that, "Nice guys" are amoral, we would have to demonstrate an ethical breach in something they are actively doing (Which strikes me as a difficult proposition since their approach is passive by its very nature.) rather than simply stating a passive desire in the meanest possible terms. 

I would argue that the, "Nice guy" is not wrong about the basic concept. He/She has simply allowed the desire to be needed to lead them into people pleasing behaviors.


----------



## greenfern

southbound said:


> 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.


I agree, and I also don't really know if it is positive or negative in the long term.

But, things have changed and we (women) are no longer in the position that our grandmothers were. We have more responsibility, more possibilities (career wise) and are "supposed" to be good homemakers, take care of our finances, be well educated, sexy, feminine, have good careers (but not ones that take too much time away from our family). I have no idea how to navigate in this new world any more than my partners do.


----------



## greenfern

Caribbean Man said:


> If women no longer needed a man to provide for her and kids , then the state would have no need to enforce alimony and child support in the case of divorce.


This is coming. 20 years ago I'm sure most divorces resulted in alimony, often long term alimony. 

In my group of peers who have divorced, alimony for longer than 6 months is unheard of and in some cases (mine) the woman paid alimony to the man. Custody is almost always 50/50 and rarely is any child support paid and it is purely done through tax tables/income differential. 

I'm not sure of the demographic on TAM in which woman (apparently) rake the man over the coals int he divorce. 

Back to the original topic I think the some qualities which were previously very highly valued in society are less valued now, including say a man doing housework or taking care of the baby. Its still valued of course but it's not something over-the-top amazing if a guy changes a diaper. Nor is it over-the-top amazing if a woman supports her family.


----------



## greenfern

Happyfamily said:


> I
> In feminist circles it is a manipulative term that doesn't really have sensible meaning. If a man has a job he is said to have "economic power" whereas his wife has none. That's ridiculous. She is equal owner of marital assets including the husband's income.


The point is, after divorce, she does not have the right to his future assets, upon which she has based her economic security. So she needs his continued presence to survive, have a house, support her children. She is tied to him and if he leaves she is f**ked. SUffice to see even with a really positive divorce settlement it is unlikely she could survive 60 years on it.


----------



## greenfern

Three posts in a row hurrah!

The original post has been occupying my mind for the last 24 hours. I'm just trying to grasp something in it that really rings true for me and it is not at all the TAM or NMMG nice guy thing, or being passive aggressive, or the "bad" kind of nice. Its how much one values "niceness" as a quality that makes you a good mate.

Women are expected to be "nice" - to take care of their partner and family, to be understanding and empathetic. When a man is "nice" it is considered unusual, special. Maybe before when less women worked outside the home or had fewer responsibilities it was easier for them to be caregivers but now men kind of have to step up, change diapers, let their wives have a bath after a long days work. For me the argument is now that its really not that special for a man to do these things, any more than it is special for a woman to do them.


----------



## jld

I agree with a lot of what you said, greenfern. But at least among the people I know, it is still over the top amazing when a woman supports the family (two parent family, I mean). I don't know any, personally, where the woman is the sole provider. 

Must just be my corner of the world.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

Caribbean Man said:


> I don't think I agree with this.
> And I think history doesn't really support your idea either.
> 
> There never was and never will be a time where women don't need men and men won't need women as a collective gender.
> 
> Women and men have always needed each other for survival of the species.
> 
> What has happened is that gender roles have evolved , both male and female species have also evolved.
> People no longer need to have large families in order to increase their chances of survival because of advances in medicine, economics and so forth.
> 
> If women no longer needed a man to provide for her and kids , then the state would have no need to enforce alimony and child support in the case of divorce.


Certainly the human race needs men and women to be together, but what does an individual women need from marriage? There are many single mothers that have shown they can be the head of their own household. A women running her how household is a common viable option today. 100 years ago-- not so much.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

ocotillo said:


> Couldn't what you have expressed above just as easily be restated as simply a male desire to be appreciated, wanted and needed? Isn't that, at its heart, a basic human inclination that is not really gender specific at all?
> 
> As a distaff corollary, consider the female aversion to pornography here on TAM: When you take all the various objections to visual erotica in any form and distill them, doesn't it ultimately come to down to a perceived assault on a woman's innate sense of uniqueness and worth?
> 
> Is that wrong? Is it a moral flaw that a great many women want to feel special for who they truly are? I would say, "No" unequivocally. That is simply a female manifestation of a basic human need.
> 
> I think if we're going to make the argument that, "Nice guys" are amoral, we would have to demonstrate an ethical breach in something they are actively doing (Which strikes me as a difficult proposition since their approach is passive by its very nature.) rather than simply stating a passive desire in the meanest possible terms.
> 
> I would argue that the, "Nice guy" is not wrong about the basic concept. He/She has simply allowed the desire to be needed to lead them into people pleasing behaviors.


Great comments. You are right, wanting to be wanted is not immoral. I am specifically critiquing "nice guys" who pine for the good old days by just focusing on how it benefited them.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

nice777guy said:


> The TAM definition of "Nice Guy" is driven by Glover's book.
> 
> The NMMNG book - to me - is nothing more than "Co-Dependent No More" with a masculine slant.


This is so true, I bought the book.. for pure curiosity...when I 1st came to TAM...I would find myself getting offended with all these Nice Guy Put downs.. cause my husband is genuinely one of the NICE ONES... he is not an obnoxious Prick, he is not selfish, I've literally had arguments with him to be MORE SELFISH (do you know how silly this sounds [email protected]#).... 

He is honest, if this man gives his word, you can count on it.. he would probably help anyone who asks (he has me to put a fork into that -if I felt he was being taken advantage of).. he is just one of those honorable Men.. He is a Giver to those in his life that he cares about.. if you are not in his circle of friends etc, he probably wouldn't like you.. as one of his favorite lines is









But for those who are...he's just a Great Guy.. approachable, warm / friendly... but this is who he IS... it is not an act to GET something.. He is not manipulative, or angry within faking who he is .... I have never experienced that before, if I did - I am sure I would come against it with FIRE .. that wouldn't be working for me and I'd surely loose respect.. this has never been.... 

But he had some of that passivity that could have been tweaked some in other areas..ya know.. we've worked on it.. it hasn't hurt for Me, as the wife, to read this book... We're very open & we discuss it ALL. It's very enjoyable to us.. my H is a very "self aware" man.. he can readily admit his faults....and want to make things right.. How important for us all.

For the type of life I envisioned.. ...what my H Is and has Always been ..was really my DREAM... I wanted a larger family....he was on board...He is an amazing Father...I'd have to say they all love DAD more than Mom (but I am loved too)...

I greatly cared about stability...Faithfulness.. I had no desire for a career... I can't say this has hurt us at all... something in him is that Protector / Provider type.. he wanted me to stay home with the kids.. and he praises me for what I bring, I too feel greatly respected and loved.. So yeah.. a Nice man (genuine) with moral values.. I still wouldn't settle for less.. 

Please don't let them all die and go the way of the Dinosaur .. I want one of those for our daughter!


----------



## ScrambledEggs

Happyfamily said:


> I'm glad we can talk this out reasonably and I thank you for understanding that much of what I said has to do with the way things are tritely framed nowadays in the politically correct culture.
> 
> What does "economic power" mean? This term is bandied about by different people with very different meanings. In my economics classes it meant the amount of purchasing capacity in terms of goods and services for some item. Like a dollar. In a culture where marriage is legally a 50-50 ownership of resources, both husband and wife have equal economic power.
> 
> In feminist circles it is a manipulative term that doesn't really have sensible meaning. If a man has a job he is said to have "economic power" whereas his wife has none. That's ridiculous. She is equal owner of marital assets including the husband's income.
> 
> Every conclusion stemming from this myth is bankrupt.
> 
> 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.


I think economic power in my context can be described as: 

_The degree of confidence or likelihood that a person could obtain stable employment, or run their own business, with all that entails, to support themselves and perhaps children in a financially secure position through life and into retirement._

Now none of this guaranteed for men or women, but the likelihood and examples of women living like this has grown by the 10's of millions in the last 50 or so years. So maybe "economic potential" or "opportunity" would be a better set of words to use in this case.

By the way, the original point is not fully relevant to the split of marital assets because it also refers to why women would want to bother to get in a marriage in the first place.


----------



## Thundarr

Caribbean Man said:


> If women no longer needed a man to provide for her and kids , then the state would have no need to enforce alimony and child support in the case of divorce.


Err. The state here has a habit of not enforcing child support at all but instead providing food stamps, housing assistance, utility assistance, etc without mandatory pursuit of biological fathers to do any part.


----------



## Caribbean Man

ScrambledEggs said:


> Certainly the human race needs men and women to be together, but what does an individual women need from marriage? There are many single mothers that have shown they can be the head of their own household. A women running her how household is a common viable option today. 100 years ago-- not so much.


I think you're missing the fine print.

On a basic level, women today need from marriage the exact , same thing as a man.
A certain level of guarantee that her offspring would be taken care of when they are grown and an inheritance when they are old enough.
Even if she is a single mother, the state comes in and supports her with welfare as per her need. That's the difference between today and 100 yrs ago.
Where does the state get its revenue from if not from taxes?
Who pays taxes?
Both genders.
So even the single mother with the deadbeat dad benefits from an input from the opposite sex financially.
Given the state of the world's economy, a single mother with two kids would have to be a wealthy heiress , to provide everything her kids need to properly equip them to start life on a sound economic footing, without help from their father or the state.
Same scenario with a single father.

That is why more wealthy people tend to stay married.

Marriage is a social construct not based only on love, but sound economics. That's why it is underwritten by the state.

Think of this for a while.
Why would any sane man want to risk giving half of his life's earnings to a woman if he doesn't see the possibility of a better life for himself and offspring later on?
Why would a woman want to jeopardize her career by getting married to a man, getting pregnant and risk having to become a SAHM wasting at least one year off her career path?

If a woman doesn't need a man economically , then she's hardly likely to get married.She'd stay single and have sex with whomsoever she wants.
If a man sees no economic benefit from marrying a woman he'd simple stay single and have sex with whomsoever he wants, though it might cost him more.

Both genders need each other, that is why people are still getting married.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Thundarr said:


> Err. The state here has a habit of not enforcing child support at all but instead providing food stamps, housing assistance, utility assistance, etc without mandatory pursuit of biological fathers to do any part.


Yup, exactly the case in some parts.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

Caribbean Man said:


> I think you're missing the fine print.
> 
> On a basic level, women today need from marriage the exact , same thing as a man.
> A certain level of guarantee that her offspring would be taken care of when they are grown and an inheritance when they are old enough.
> Even if she is a single mother, the state comes in and supports her with welfare as per her need. That's the difference between today and 100 yrs ago.
> Where does the state get its revenue from if not from taxes?
> Who pays taxes?
> Both genders.
> So even the single mother with the deadbeat dad benefits from an input from the opposite sex financially.
> Given the state of the world's economy, a single mother with two kids would have to be a wealthy heiress , to provide everything her kids need to properly equip them to start life on a sound economic footing, without help from their father or the state.
> Same scenario with a single father.
> 
> That is why more wealthy people tend to stay married.
> 
> Marriage is a social construct not based only on love, but sound economics. That's why it is underwritten by the state.
> 
> Think of this for a while.
> Why would any sane man want to risk giving half of his life's earnings to a woman if he doesn't see the possibility of a better life for himself and offspring later on?
> Why would a woman want to jeopardize her career by getting married to a man, getting pregnant and risk having to become a SAHM wasting at least one year off her career path?
> 
> If a woman doesn't need a man economically , then she's hardly likely to get married.She'd stay single and have sex with whomsoever she wants.
> If a man sees no economic benefit from marrying a woman he'd simple stay single and have sex with whomsoever he wants, though it might cost him more.
> 
> Both parties need each other, that is why people are still getting married.


A good deal more has changed in the last 100 years that just social welfare. More women are getting educated, exercising birth control and choosing to live outside of a marriage even without kids. There are 10's of millions of examples of this in the US alone. It is a fixture of the modern societies and economies in the West. 

A women by no means need to be heiress to get by alone. That is nonsense. You need a career that pays ~$50K + and the discipline to budget, live within your means, and save money throughout your life for retirement. 

A women starting work at age 22 with a $40k salary and saving 13% per year will retire with $2M in savings. That is with staying the same job for 45 years with no promotions or large raises pushed by job changes. This sort of success is in reach of anyone that applies themselves notwithstanding crippling "bad luck". Anyway what is usually viewed as "bad luck" can be significantly managed with the right insurance and ongoing education as the job market changes. 

But then all this seems to be a departure from my point which you said you did not agree with and suggested that history said otherwise. I don't see it--the history you point to only reenforces what I have been saying. Women have more economic options and opportunities than they did 100 year ago-- a lot more. If follows then that economic considerations are now less important to the decision to marry or stay married. I am not sure how any of this overturns that.


----------



## 2ntnuf

> Women have more economic options and opportunities than they did 100 year ago-- a lot more. If follows then that economic consideration are less important to the decision to marry or stay married. I am not sure how any of this overturns that.


I don't believe this. Women want a man who makes approximately the same amount of money as them, in a situation like that. They need a man to pay equally toward vacations, gifts and anything else that is not something for themselves alone. They don't want to feel taken advantage of in any situation. That's human nature. 

If a man isn't in it for equal financial responsibility, she probably won't be interested in him long-term. When women speak of equality, they mean in every way. 

They don't want to call your doctor and make you an appointment. They don't want to handle the party planning for your buddies. They don't want to go and pick out and purchase the present for your sibling or parents. This makes sense, since they don't know your family or friends as well as you do. 

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. It seems that you are trying to make a case for not getting marred, ever, for any reason. 

If that is the case, it may possibly be the best answer for some. It is not for everyone. Some folks love working together. They need someone to bounce ideas off of and help them think. They enjoy having someone to watch a movie with, do chores, talk with, share responsibilities with. We all need companionship. When it's the same person all the time, it makes for a more comfortable life. 

We feel a closeness we can't with anyone else. If the two are sexually compatible and tending to those needs, it just makes life all that much better. It's much more satisfying to be with someone you know you can please and you know wants you, than take a chance with some relative stranger. That may be exciting, but it's also fearful, too. 

There are folks who believe it's best to raise children with two parents at home. I do think it's best that way, personally, even in this day and age. I think children benefit and are more well rounded, when and if the marriage is decent. 

Some men and women have had such a tough time in relationships, they have just given up. I know of many women where I live, that just don't even date, period. Are they happy? I don't know. I haven't asked. 

The world can be very harsh on folks. Complaints about judging are rampant, but those who complain about that injustice have their own issues with judging others. Maybe it isn't the same issue, but many, if not most or all, judge others all the time. 

We have to judge others by their actions. It's all we have to go on. If we give everyone the benefit of the doubt, we will find ourselves constantly being taken advantage of in life. None of this is brain surgery. It's all been happening since humans have been on the planet. It's necessary for species survival.

Not sure this is relevant to your post, but I believe it is. I really don't know what is causing you to look for validation.


----------



## murphy5

I tried reading thru this thread, but my head started to hurt. Apparently there are a lot of man-hating people around! Maybe should look inside to figure out why a woman would feel that way?


----------



## Caribbean Man

ScrambledEggs said:


> A women starting work at age 22 with a $40k salary and saving 13% per year will retire with $2M in savings. That is with staying the same job for 45 years with no promotions or large raises pushed by job changes. This sort of success is in reach of anyone that applies themselves notwithstanding crippling "bad luck". Anyway what is usually viewed as "bad luck" can be significantly managed with the right insurance and ongoing education as the job market changes.



If what you posted up there is in fact true for the average woman, then why would a woman want to get married and risk loosing her $2M in savings at retirement?
For love?
For emotional fulfillment?

Doesn't seem logical to me. If I was a woman and guaranteed $2M at retirement after 45 years at the same job, why would I risk loosing that by getting married and starting a family?

See?

That's the point.
That's why women need men just as much as men need women in society.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

murphy5 said:


> I tried reading thru this thread, but my head started to hurt. Apparently there are a lot of man-hating people around! Maybe should look inside to figure out why a woman would feel that way?


No offense, but why would you comment on a thread you have not read or have not understood? No one has said anything at all misanthropic in this thread.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

2ntnuf said:


> I don't believe this. Women want a man who makes approximately the same amount of money as them, in a situation like that. They need a man to pay equally toward vacations, gifts and anything else that is not something for themselves alone. They don't want to feel taken advantage of in any situation. That's human nature.


Which part don't you agree with? Are you suggesting that paying for food in the 1870's is on equal priority with paying for a vacation today? That does not seem likely. 

As children of the depression, my grandparents thought throwing away food was a sin. They would stand at the fridge and eat marginally spoiled food rather than throw it away and this was in the 80's. The feared they would need those calories one day even though they had pensions and social security, and savings, and could easily afford food.


2ntnuf said:


> If a man isn't in it for equal financial responsibility, she probably won't be interested in him long-term. When women speak of equality, they mean in every way.


Yes re-read the OP.



2ntnuf said:


> I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. It seems that you are trying to make a case for not getting marred, ever, for any reason.


I am resisting retyping what I have already typed six times and refer you back to the OP. I am not making a case against getting married. I am not making any hidden point beyond what is clearly spelled out in the OP.



2ntnuf said:


> If that is the case, it may possibly be the best answer for some. It is not for everyone. Some folks love working together. They need someone to bounce ideas off of and help them think. They enjoy having someone to watch a movie with, do chores, talk with, share responsibilities with. We all need companionship. When it's the same person all the time, it makes for a more comfortable life.


I read an awful lot of stories of marriages on TAM where they are breaking up because one side has become bored with the comfortable life. Whatever extent you statement might be true for you and I, it is not true for many.



2ntnuf said:


> There are folks who believe it's best to raise children with two parents at home. I do think it's best that way, personally, even in this day and age. I think children benefit and are more well rounded, when and if the marriage is decent.


Of course, but what is best for the kids does not make a happy couple.



2ntnuf said:


> Not sure this is relevant to your post, but I believe it is. I really don't know what is causing you to look for validation.


It is not relevant to the my original post. I think you got pulled away from my responses that wondered off the point because they had to answer some other posts.

I don't see this as a quest for validation. This is something I have been turning over in my head for a few weeks and I thought I would throw it up here. So far the discussion as been good and I have learned a bit while expanding my understanding of this phenomenon in question.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

Caribbean Man said:


> If what you posted up there is in fact true for the average woman, then why would a woman want to get married and risk loosing her $2M in savings at retirement?
> For love?
> For emotional fulfillment?


That seem seems to make my point. Women are now more free to marry for emotional fulfillment and companionship over necessity. Clearly this is not an absolute today but, as I keep saying, is now vastly more true than it was 100 years ago.


Caribbean Man said:


> Doesn't seem logical to me. If I was a woman and guaranteed $2M at retirement after 45 years at the same job, why would I risk loosing that by getting married and starting a family?


How does getting married affect your ability to work and save money? While being in a marriage can be more secure, it also can come with financial risks. The point is women now have a reasonable expectation of being a successful sole provider where before they did not. They have more options to choose from.



Caribbean Man said:


> See?
> 
> That's the point.
> That's why women need men just as much as men need women in society.


Honestly I don't see what you are getting at.


----------



## Holland

murphy5 said:


> I tried reading thru this thread, but my head started to hurt. Apparently there are a lot of man-hating people around! Maybe should look inside to figure out why a woman would feel that way?


Man hating? No, you have misrepresented much of what has been said.

In general women love and adore men. The difference today is that we are basing our criteria for a mate on different things than in past generations. 
Women's lives have gone through a huge change in the past few generations as has life in general with technology, communications etc.
What women want today is different to the past, like it or not but that is where we are at. Like a PP said it can be just as confusing for women to know what our role is as it is for men.

Bottom line for me personally, I adore men but they have to be "good" men, forget nice. Nice is insipid and conjures up a notion of being nice to get what they want.

I am a modern woman that can do it myself, earn it myself and make my own choices. There is a vast portion of the male population that just would not cut it in my selection criteria. I have an exceptional man in my life. 

I love men, cannot live without them, good, solid men that is.


----------



## Caribbean Man

ScrambledEggs said:


> That seem seems to make my point. Women are now more free to marry for emotional fulfillment and companionship over necessity. Clearly this is not an absolute today but, as I keep saying, is now vastly more true than it was 100 years ago.
> 
> 
> How does getting married affect your ability to work and save money? While being in a marriage can be more secure, it also can come with financial risks. The point is women now have a reasonable expectation of being a successful sole provider where before they did not. They have more options to choose from.
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly I don't see what you are getting at.


Lol,

You are making my point for me.

Yes women do have more options . But women having more options does not automatically make men dispensable, or mean that their options are better than men in life.

Lets use your logic.
Women now earn money so that they don't need to marry a man for financial reasons.
If so why would she get married, for emotional fulfillment?
I don't think a woman *_needs_* to get married to a man for emotional fulfillment any more than a man *_needs_* to get married to a woman for emotional fulfillment. They both can get married to their own sex / gender, and get that emotional fulfillment. In fact, they can live a variety of non monogamous lifestyles and still get the level of emotional fulfillment they desire, without entangling their personal finances.



If a man thinks he's going to loose financially and otherwise by getting married, he obviously wouldn't get married.

If a woman thinks she's going to loose financially and otherwise by getting married, she obviously won't get married.

The point I'm getting at is that both parties get married because they consider themselves equals in a number of ways, and they want a better life for themselves and their offspring in the future.

Yes women have options and can go it alone.

But so too, men.
Men are not disadvantaged as you are making them out to be.


----------



## EleGirl

murphy5 said:


> I tried reading thru this thread, but my head started to hurt. Apparently there are a lot of man-hating people around! Maybe should look inside to figure out why a woman would feel that way?


Feel what way? A lot of things have been discussed. Which one are you talking about?


----------



## ScrambledEggs

Caribbean Man said:


> Lol,
> 
> You are making my point for me.
> 
> Yes women do have more options . But women having more options does not automatically make men dispensable, or mean that their options are better than men in life.
> 
> Lets use your logic.
> Women now earn money so that they don't need to marry a man for financial reasons.
> If so why would she get married, for emotional fulfillment?
> I don't think a woman *_needs_* to get married to a man for emotional fulfillment any more than a man *_needs_* to get married to a woman for emotional fulfillment. They both can get married to their own sex / gender, and get that emotional fulfillment. In fact, they can live a variety of non monogamous lifestyles and still get the level of emotional fulfillment they desire, without entangling their personal finances.
> 
> 
> 
> If a man thinks he's going to loose financially and otherwise by getting married, he obviously wouldn't get married.
> 
> If a woman thinks she's going to loose financially and otherwise by getting married, she obviously won't get married.
> 
> The point I'm getting at is that both parties get married because they consider themselves equals in a number of ways, and they want a better life for themselves and their offspring in the future.
> 
> Yes women have options and can go it alone.
> 
> But so too, men.
> Men are not disadvantaged as you are making them out to be.


We are not even talking about the same things. Nothing you are saying ties back to my original point as far as I can tell.

I never said men where dispensable.
I never said men where disadvantaged.
I never said women are better off alone.
I am not sure I follow the logic you mention, but I assure you it is not my logic.
This was never about winning or losing financially.
I have no idea where the same sex marriage stuff came from.


I don't know what else to say. You are completely missing my point. Any response will just make it worse...


----------



## Thundarr

Caribbean Man said:


> If a man thinks he's going to loose financially and otherwise by getting married, he obviously wouldn't get married.
> 
> If a woman thinks she's going to loose financially and otherwise by getting married, she obviously won't get married.
> 
> The point I'm getting at is that both parties get married because they consider themselves equals in a number of ways, and they want a better life for themselves and their offspring in the future.
> 
> Yes women have options and can go it alone.
> 
> But so too, men.
> Men are not disadvantaged as you are making them out to be.


Men have always had an advantage where being a good provider gave us an edge over men who were not good providers ( potentially over men who are more desirable? ). Now women can easily provide for themselves so the playing field is more even. There's a reason why established women with younger men (cougars) are more common now than generations past.

But yes men and women marry every day knowing it's not smart financially.


----------



## 2ntnuf

ScrambledEggs said:


> 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.


This nice guy that you mention is not really nice. He looks for ways to help his wife when it is not needed, just to get her to praise him. It's not nice to put cost on things like that. I think NMMNG calls it covert contracts. 

The old time nice guy was not this way. He did do things for his wife in an effort to treat her as the more gentle sex. Today, that's not well liked by many women. Some will even get angry if you hold open a door for them. That seems extreme to me, but I understand that it can feel like a threat when the woman is not comfortable with herself. 




ScrambledEggs said:


> 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.


To some extent, I agree with this. Although, I don't think that's what they are attempting. I think there are many men who have been taught to act a certain way around women. 

Women have been called, "the fairer sex". They have been thought of as needing more gentle treatment. Today, men are still expected to treat women as, "the fairer sex", but the way we are to do it, is different. 

The old way doesn't make them feel like they are respected. Those books are there to help men learn a different way of treating women, that makes them feel more respected, but doesn't treat them harshly. That doesn't mean the men are doing it properly. 



ScrambledEggs said:


> 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.


I tend to agree with all of this and some of what I posted above refers to it. I remember men and women of my parents' era, the same as your grandparents', kind of mixing with their own sex, or with other couples. I don't remember all the thoughts of women and men, married or not, mixing alone and being friends. I mean just colleagues and buddies. It didn't happen as much. It was thought of as cheating, if I remember correctly. Rumors would start spreading. 

When we talk of equality in all things, we have to consider that men and women are the same, even biologically. Since we are not, we tend not to even think in similar manner, because of the different amounts of the same chemicals going to our brains to influence reason. That may seem old fashioned, but it's a part of our makeup and there is really nothing we can do about it. 




ScrambledEggs said:


> 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.


I agree with the first sentence. I know, unless they want a man to impregnate them the old-fashioned way, they will have to use some of the money and power to acquire sperm from a bank, and hire a doctor to perform artificial insemination. Men do still have a choice with whom they want to have sex. 

Women always required more than a man who doesn't beat them and pays the rent. At least, from what I can remember. Mum didn't have to marry dad. In fact, I rather think my mum's parents did not want her to marry him. Did she have to marry someone? Well, that may be likely or possible, but I remember her saying many women worked, but seemed to be thought of as spinsters in some circles, because they weren't married. 

Those thoughts have translated for me into, "that woman doesn't really like sex". She is cold and would rather be alone. They still had choices. At least in the U.S., they did. The man had to do what would be looked at in a favorable way by the woman he wanted to marry, or was attempting to date. 

In essence, women always had the lock and some men had the key, but they had to treat the women as they wanted, or they got nothing. It's different today because women, as you have said, do want something different. The lock has changed, so the key must be reground to fit. 




ScrambledEggs said:


> 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.


This is where we disagree. I think I addressed why I don't agree, above. 

I don't think it's beyond, it's just different. 




ScrambledEggs said:


> 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.


You say you are not a feminist. Are you a man or a woman? I didn't know men could be feminists. I thought you were a man. My apologies if I have offended you. I'm confused by differing posts in other areas of the forum.

Good morals really don't change. The only part of morals that has changed is the idea that it's great to have sex with whomever will allow us, as often as we can, and no one is allowed to disagree. That's an individual thing. If everyone must accept that and do likewise, we lose our freedom. 

Equality would look more like some believe that kind of sex is fine and others don't. Neither side would degrade the other for their opinion, but at the same time, neither side would try to convince the other that nothing is wrong with their side. All would be accepted for who they are, as long as no one is being harmed, not hurt(feelings), by what we choose to do. 

That's respect. That's where equality starts. 

I think when men treat women as equals, women sometimes don't understand it. They think men are bullies, or abusive. Sometimes they are. I think those men just haven't understood what these women require to feel respected and equal. 

Men have a conundrum. They have to learn how to treat women as women with power and money. Men can't treat them as they do other men. That would be equality, I don't think any men or women really want that kind of, "equality". So, many of these books try to address that and keep a man as a man, without us becoming androgynous.

Hope that addresses your points a little better. I apologize for not replying in a manner that addressed your points. It wasn't intentional.


----------



## Caribbean Man

2ntnuf said:


> 1] *Men do still have a choice with whom they want to have sex. *
> 
> 2]*Women always required more than a man who doesn't beat them and pays the rent. *


Basically what I've been trying to tell the OP.

I don't understand where that weird caricature of the history of marriage is coming from.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

2ntnuf said:


> This nice guy that you mention is not really nice. He looks for ways to help his wife when it is not needed, just to get her to praise him. It's not nice to put cost on things like that. I think NMMNG calls it covert contracts.
> 
> The old time nice guy was not this way. He did do things for his wife in an effort to treat her as the more gentle sex. Today, that's not well liked by many women. Some will even get angry if you hold open a door for them. That seems extreme to me, but I understand that it can feel like a threat when the woman is not comfortable with herself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To some extent, I agree with this. Although, I don't think that's what they are attempting. I think there are many men who have been taught to act a certain way around women.
> 
> Women have been called, "the fairer sex". They have been thought of as needing more gentle treatment. Today, men are still expected to treat women as, "the fairer sex", but the way we are to do it, is different.
> 
> The old way doesn't make them feel like they are respected. Those books are there to help men learn a different way of treating women, that makes them feel more respected, but doesn't treat them harshly. That doesn't mean the men are doing it properly.
> 
> 
> 
> I tend to agree with all of this and some of what I posted above refers to it. I remember men and women of my parents' era, the same as your grandparents', kind of mixing with their own sex, or with other couples. I don't remember all the thoughts of women and men, married or not, mixing alone and being friends. I mean just colleagues and buddies. It didn't happen as much. It was thought of as cheating, if I remember correctly. Rumors would start spreading.
> 
> When we talk of equality in all things, we have to consider that men and women are the same, even biologically. Since we are not, we tend not to even think in similar manner, because of the different amounts of the same chemicals going to our brains to influence reason. That may seem old fashioned, but it's a part of our makeup and there is really nothing we can do about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with the first sentence. I know, unless they want a man to impregnate them the old-fashioned way, they will have to use some of the money and power to acquire sperm from a bank, and hire a doctor to perform artificial insemination. Men do still have a choice with whom they want to have sex.
> 
> Women always required more than a man who doesn't beat them and pays the rent. At least, from what I can remember. Mum didn't have to marry dad. In fact, I rather think my mum's parents did not want her to marry him. Did she have to marry someone? Well, that may be likely or possible, but I remember her saying many women worked, but seemed to be thought of as spinsters in some circles, because they weren't married.
> 
> Those thoughts have translated for me into, "that woman doesn't really like sex". She is cold and would rather be alone. They still had choices. At least in the U.S., they did. The man had to do what would be looked at in a favorable way by the woman he wanted to marry, or was attempting to date.
> 
> In essence, women always had the lock and some men had the key, but they had to treat the women as they wanted, or they got nothing. It's different today because women, as you have said, do want something different. The lock has changed, so the key must be reground to fit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is where we disagree. I think I addressed why I don't agree, above.
> 
> I don't think it's beyond, it's just different.


There is plenty of room for reasonable disagreement here. I don't wonder though if the exceptions you point out fit into a rhetorical exception that proves the rule of what I am saying. Women of the 19th century where largely in arranged marriages that where chosen based on the mans ability to provide as compared to his and her class. Examples of our parents and grandparents are already into the process and do not provide enough contrast.




2ntnuf said:


> You say you are not a feminist. Are you a man or a woman? I didn't know men could be feminists. I thought you were a man. My apologies if I have offended you. I'm confused by differing posts in other areas of the forum.


I am a dude. I suppose men can be feminists and I have seen male journalists refer to themselves as such in their work. Since I don't believe everything out of the modern feminist movement I don't consider myself one. You have not offended me.



2ntnuf said:


> Good morals really don't change. The only part of morals that has changed is the idea that it's great to have sex with whomever will allow us, as often as we can, and no one is allowed to disagree. That's an individual thing. If everyone must accept that and do likewise, we lose our freedom.


Morality has changed a great deal in the last 150 years. You might subjectively hold this statement, and you would not be wrong, but chances are your great grandchildren will think you to be a social Neanderthal. My grandparents thought all kinds of crazy stuff that is immoral in today's contemporary society. Morals are always evolving and have through every generation and age. 



2ntnuf said:


> Equality would look more like some believe that kind of sex is fine and others don't. Neither side would degrade the other for their opinion, but at the same time, neither side would try to convince the other that nothing is wrong with their side. All would be accepted for who they are, as long as no one is being harmed, not hurt(feelings), by what we choose to do.
> 
> That's respect. That's where equality starts.


Yes, totally agree. I am a libertarian at heart, driven away from the right and the GOP by social lunacy.



2ntnuf said:


> I think when men treat women as equals, women sometimes don't understand it. They think men are bullies, or abusive. Sometimes they are. I think those men just haven't understood what these women require to feel respected and equal.


Sometimes they are just a$$holes. 



2ntnuf said:


> Men have a conundrum. They have to learn how to treat women as women with power and money. Men can't treat them as they do other men. That would be equality, I don't think any men or women really want that kind of, "equality". So, many of these books try to address that and keep a man as a man, without us becoming androgynous.


I think many women want equality and equity. I am not sure why they wouldn't. Though this is a great quote:



> “Whenever women have insisted on absolute equality with men, they have invariably wound up with the dirty end of the stick. What they are and what they can do makes them superior to men, and their proper tactic is to demand special privileges, all the traffic will bear. They should never settle merely for equality. For women, "equality" is a disaster.” --Robert Heinlein






2ntnuf said:


> Hope that addresses your points a little better. I apologize for not replying in a manner that addressed your points. It wasn't intentional.


Thanks for your comments...


----------



## Happyfamily

EleGirl said:


> I agree. Women's economic power in the past was mostly tied to the man she married.


Right. Both husband and wife formed a team for the production of wealth and family life. What the gender war has done is pretend that they are adversaries instead of team-mates who share the fruits of marriage. A man can't get pregnant and bear children either, but we don't pretend that means he can't be a parent.



> Generally if a woman did not marry her financial pictures was pretty bleak (unless she had a good inheritance), she could not find work that paid equal to what men were paid.


And a man couldn't produce offspring. So they combine to produce both offspring, wealth, and value of home production (child rearing, home crafts, food and clothing production, etc.)

The gender war makes us look at a team and pretend that the quarterback is the enemy of the guy he throws the ball to in order to make the touchdown. It makes us think that the team does not win games as a coordinated/cooperative unit. The quarterback gets the points he scores, the running guy gets the points he scores, the kicking guy gets the points he scores, and the guy hiking the ball gets zero. 

I'm guessing the ball-catchers score the most points so under this stupid way of looking at it, we tell young people they all need to be ball catchers if they want any self-respect and dignity, and tell every other position that these ball catchers have been oppressing them for the last hundred years by having all this point-power used against them.

I've used this term "point power" just exactly the same way "economic power" is misused by gender warriors. It is wrong, it is stupid, and it is time we stop doing it and make love instead of war. Win the game together. As a team.


----------



## Happyfamily

ScrambledEggs said:


> I think economic power in my context can be described as:
> 
> _The degree of confidence or likelihood that a person could obtain stable employment, or run their own business, with all that entails, to support themselves and perhaps children in a financially secure position through life and into retirement._


That is clearly the fallacy of definition. It is not reality. You have done what the gender warriors have done, which is to pretend that the only person who has rights to family assets is the person working. 

That is just as fallacious as saying that the only person who has rights to be a parent is the one who gives birth. 

"Baby power", or "birth power" or whatever manipulative name we want to ascribe to it. And we can then point to women and say how they have been oppressing men for the last ten million years with their "birth power". No man can ever have a baby so no man can be a parent.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

Happyfamily said:


> That is clearly the fallacy of definition. It is not reality. You have done what the gender warriors have done, which is to pretend that the only person who has rights to family assets is the person working.
> 
> That is just as fallacious as saying that the only person who has rights to be a parent is the one who gives birth.
> 
> "Baby power", or "birth power" or whatever manipulative name we want to ascribe to it. And we can then point to women and say how they have been oppressing men for the last ten million years with their "birth power". No man can ever have a baby so no man can be a parent.


You are putting words in my mouth. I am not sure why even property rights come into it and I definitely have not made the assumption that women had no rights to community property.

Fact is, and I don't think you would disagree with this, is that women have more options to success and survival (that do not require a husband), than they did 100 years ago. You may not draw the same conclusion from that that but that point I think is clear to all of us.

The fact that women had the right to common property, yet a more limited ability to earn, only drives home the point I am making. Which is women placed a higher value on the basics than they do today. The basics are still required and important, but it is, now more than ever, not enough to hold a marriage together or even get on in the first place.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

I keep checking in on this thread..I have missed some pages... it's trucking along pretty fast...so maybe I have missed it...

... I do see that Scrambled eggs is a professed Dude and doesn't call himself a Feminist and seems to take issue with others saying things he doesn't think belong on this thread... a little confused by that.. isn't all discussion worthy - even if it goes off a little here or there... 

I am just curious what *YOUR FEELINGS* on all of this IS.... you keep comparing back then to NOW.. and how we don't NEED each other.. actually I agree.. all I see today is people saying.. It's just a peice of paper.. everyone shacks up with each other.. the genders can Play all they want/ live the high life ... without commitment and half the children have parents in 2 separate homes... commonplace...

How do you feel about that Scambled Eggs?? Do you have some sort of solution or do you feel this is all well and good.. we just need to Progress to a new way for Relationships... as Marriages are just not working or needed anymore ??


----------



## Happyfamily

ScrambledEggs said:


> I am not sure why even property rights come into it


Exactly. You don't understand. 

Nobody can take my economic power with word games. 

I can buy anything I want. Right now. Yet I earn zero. This is why I scoff at feminists for relentlessly painting me as a powerless victim of my husband's "economic power". Half his earnings are legally mine through the economic contract called marriage. I'm a contractor.

You buy into gender war propaganda. I realize how politically correct this war terminology is. But I am not a lemming.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

SimplyAmorous said:


> I keep checking in on this thread..I have missed some pages... it's trucking along pretty fast...so maybe I have missed it...
> 
> ... I do see that Scrambled eggs is a professed Dude and doesn't call himself a Feminist and seems to take issue with others saying things he doesn't think belong on this thread... a little confused by that.. isn't all discussion worthy - even if it goes off a little here or there...
> 
> I am just curious what *YOUR FEELINGS* on all of this IS.... you keep comparing back then to NOW.. and how we don't NEED each other.. actually I agree.. all I see today is people saying.. It's just a peice of paper.. everyone shacks up with each other.. the genders can Play all they want/ live the high life ... without commitment and half the children have parents in 2 separate homes... commonplace...
> 
> How do you feel about that Scambled Eggs?? Do you have some sort of solution or do you feel this is all well and good.. we just need to Progress to a new way for Relationships... as Marriages are just not working or needed anymore ??


A lot has been said in this thread and a lot of it I have not said, but I think ideas I did not state are being attributed to me. My point was pretty simple and its been conflated much larger than I imagine. 

How do I feel? A bit tired of repeating myself. I am cool with disagreement and I don't care if someone wants to evolve this thread elsewhere, but I have felt that I should respond as people debate different ideas as if they where the ideas that kicked this off.

How do I feel about the changes in gender roles? I think it has destabilized our society and there is no equilibrium at this time. Culture and mainstream morality is evolving faster than ever. Where it will lead is anyones guess. Even while I say that, I can't, for reasons state to the point of exhaustion, imagine that it would be right or moral to go back to the 'good ole days'.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

Happyfamily said:


> Exactly. You don't understand.
> 
> Nobody can take my economic power with word games.
> 
> I can buy anything I want. Right now. Yet I earn zero. This is why I scoff at feminists for relentlessly painting me as a powerless victim of my husband's "economic power". Half his earnings are legally mine through the economic contract called marriage. I'm a contractor.
> 
> You buy into gender war propaganda. I realize how politically correct this war terminology is. But I am not a lemming.


I don't have a problem with that. I would not call you powerless, or disadvantaged. I would not suggest that you have no economic power. Where do you get that I do? You have marched an army of straw man at me in this thread. 

But even then all these straw men have nothing to do with my original point. If your interested in that, read my OP.


----------



## Thundarr

ScrambledEggs said:


> ... Which is women placed a higher value on the basics than they do today. The basics are still required and important, but it is, now more than ever, not enough to hold a marriage together or even get on in the first place.


By _women placed a higher value on the basics_ I think you're saying they placed higher value to a man who provided financial security to them than they do today. It's true because being financially secure without a man was more difficult in 1914. The correlation seems obvious.

I think you're just pointing out the correlation SE but not necessarily saying we should make women have to have a men financially again. Equal opportunity is a good change but marriage dynamics can be more difficult. Ehh it's our job to adapt now. *Maybe we (men) were a little spoiled by being needed for mere survival rather than needed only as a companion and partner.*


----------



## ocotillo

Thundarr said:


> It's true because being financially secure without a man was more difficult in 1914.


Is there a significance to 1914 that I'm missing, or is it just a number chosen randomly as an example of a simpler time?


----------



## ScrambledEggs

Thundarr said:


> By _women placed a higher value on the basics_ I think you're saying they placed higher value to a man who provided financial security to them than they do today. It's true because being financially secure without a man was more difficult in 1914. The correlation seems obvious.
> 
> I think you're just pointing out the correlation SE but not necessarily saying we should make women have to have a men financially again. Equal opportunity is a good change but marriage dynamics can be more difficult. Ehh it's our job to adapt now. *Maybe we (men) were a little spoiled by being needed for mere survival rather than needed only as a companion and partner.*


Yes, Exactly. Thank you. And now that you mention it, it is somewhat obvious and probably not worth a 10 page thread.

My impression is that this topic touches on some raw spots with people that they really want to say something about, or get something off their chest. I am not the guy to open that thread though.


----------



## Caribbean Man

ocotillo said:


> Is there a significance to 1914 that I'm missing, or is it just a number chosen randomly as an example of a simpler time?



OK.
Octillo, you've got me a bit puzzled.

Wasn't 1914 the outbreak of WWI and when for the first time women were hired into the factories that manufactured ammunition, bombs and so on because the men either had to go to war or died in war?

Also the working conditions of those women were horrible , and they were paid less than men for the same job. I think this led to a the first general women's labour strike in the UK which they won the right to equal pay circa 1918.


----------



## Trickster

Soon after our daughter was born, I had an accident and couldn't work. We just purchased a home, we had some savings, I was earning good money. After some medical bills, me not being able to earn money, and not even able to walk without agonizing pain, we were broke pretty quick. My wife did go back to work part time, but we had to sell our home. After all her education, she had zero earning power.
The worst thing in the world was when I lost my earning power. I was useless.
I am better now, i work hard and I am a good provider. 

What bothers me and scares the heck out of me now is that my wife has no interest in working on herself if that happens to me again. The more I make, the more she wants to improve our status...My wife recently went back to work making $9.00/ hr. Our daughter is 10 now. She is content with that.

I am sorta that "nice guy" . Years ago, before we married, we broke up and she moved to another city. Six months later, she wanted to come back.

Was it love?

Did she miss me?

Was she financially broke?

I was never rich. I just worked hard and paid my bills...oh.... I was "nice". That was enough for her then and its enough for her now. I dont think I was immoral or dishonest then or now.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

ScrambledEggs said:


> A lot has been said in this thread and a lot of it I have not said, but I think ideas I did not state are being attributed to me. My point was pretty simple and its been conflated much larger than I imagine.
> 
> How do I feel? A bit tired of repeating myself. I am cool with disagreement and I don't care if someone wants to evolve this thread elsewhere, but I have felt that I should respond as people debate different ideas as if they where the ideas that kicked this off.
> 
> How do I feel about the changes in gender roles? I think it has destabilized our society and there is no equilibrium at this time. Culture and mainstream morality is evolving faster than ever. Where it will lead is anyones guess. Even while I say that, I can't, for reasons state to the point of exhaustion, imagine that it would be right or moral to go back to the 'good ole days'.


People are contributing to your thread, isn't that GOOD ..you sound exhausted dealing with your own thread.. some people start threads here and don't even get any replies.. I think it's great others are contributing so much.. 

I guess I find your opening post a little offending to Good men -to be honest but I'm one who likes the roles of the good old days .. (God help me for admitting that in modern society)....but I sure agree with you....where it is going --even some of the good (at least I feel) seems to have gotten lost... 

Do you look down on those who see value in that sort of set up...the traditional marriage? I just kinda get that vibe from you.. but I don't know..

And morally.. where is your compass ?? What do you feel is important .. where are WE missing it ...in how we teach / and be that example to our children ??


----------



## greenfern

Happyfamily said:


> That is clearly the fallacy of definition. It is not reality. You have done what the gender warriors have done, which is to pretend that the only person who has rights to family assets is the person working.
> 
> That is just as fallacious as saying that the only person who has rights to be a parent is the one who gives birth.
> 
> "Baby power", or "birth power" or whatever manipulative name we want to ascribe to it. And we can then point to women and say how they have been oppressing men for the last ten million years with their "birth power". No man can ever have a baby so no man can be a parent.


I disagree. While MARRIED, they partners have equal economic power. After divorce, if it happened, there is a huge differential in economic power and everyone here would agree the person who chose to be a SAHM/D is significantly economically disadvantaged, and probably will be so for the rest of their live. 

The man can definitely sue for half custody of their children and will be involved with the kids for the rest of their lives. The woman will only get half the assets at a point in time (and possibly some assistance for a couple years after). The two situations are totally different.


----------



## Caribbean Man

SimplyAmorous said:


> *Do you look down on those who see value in that sort of set up...the traditional marriage? I just kinda get that vibe from you.. but I don't know..*
> 
> And morally.. where is your compass ?? What do you feel is important .. where are WE missing it ...in how we teach / and be that example to our children ??


I also got that vibe , maybe i was wrong.

But that is why I disagreed with his premise and his recollection of the more traditional marriages of the past.

I don't think there was ever a time in the past where all women only valued marrying a man for his earning power. Even though that was part of her reason, women always wanted more than a man who would just pay the bills.

I find that is a sad caricature of the multifaceted construct called monogamous marriage.

I'm not discounting the fact that marriage was and still very much is an economic construct, but unless his reference point was arranged marriages, romance and courtship was always a part of the marriage union before and after marriage.

Romance is still very much a part of marriage today even as it was back then.
To me the idea that men need to step up to the plate and provide more in terms of emotional involvement in a marriage simply because a woman has a higher earning capacity is self depreciating, which ironically is a typical passive aggressive state of mind.

I married my equal and together we use our resources to better our lives and our future. She is an independent woman and would never think of using blackmail to get me to respond to her emotional needs. I am much more than an ATM whether emotionally or financially to her, I am he husband in every sense of the word and she is my wife.
We both have needs and seek to fulfil each others needs as we grow TOGETHER.

Any woman or man that has to resort to blackmail to get his / her needs met is manipulative.


----------



## ocotillo

Caribbean Man said:


> OK.
> Wasn't 1914 the outbreak of WWI and when for the first time women were hired into the factories that manufactured ammunition, bombs and so on because the men either had to go to war or died in war?


If that's the significance, I think WWII is probably a better example. The immediate effect of WWI in the U.K. was widespread unemployment among women as service positions were lost _en masse._ 

That was only gradually offset over the next several years as women found employment in government departments, public transportation, post office, nursing, business clerical and for some, in factories. Whether this put an end to the "Spoiled male" that's been alleged is probably debatable, as the war significantly reduced the male population in the U.K. For other countries, like the U.S., WWI was primarily a European conflict fought on European soil with an effect that was only felt near the very end of the war.


----------



## jld

ScrambledEggs said:


> How do I feel about the changes in gender roles? *I think it has destabilized our society and there is no equilibrium at this time. * Culture and mainstream morality is evolving faster than ever. Where it will lead is anyones guess. Even while I say that, I can't, for reasons state to the point of exhaustion, imagine that it would be right or moral to go back to the 'good ole days'.


I agree with the bolded, though it is not very socially acceptable to say it.

I can't imagine divorce is really good for children. I think a lot of women would like to be SAHMs. And it seems like men would just like a woman they could trust.

Traditional marriage works for dh and me. I do not really trust the "falling in love" model. I think marriage is serious business, and practical aspects must be considered.

Well, with women getting more education and earning more than men, our society is changing. We will adapt. There will be gains, and there will be casualties.

I do think we are going against nature, though. And I think there will always be a price to pay for going against nature.


----------



## jld

Caribbean Man said:


> I'm not discounting the fact that marriage was and still very much is an economic construct, but unless his reference point was arranged marriages, romance and courtship was always a part of the marriage union before and after marriage.
> 
> Romance is still very much a part of marriage today even as it was back then.


Well, I disagree. My understanding is that romance only became a norm around the 14th or 15th centuries. I think it started with Alienor of Aquitaine? I do not know much medieval history, but I thought it was in her time that women started to persuade men that chivalry was a good thing.

Humans have a pretty brutish history. I am not at all surprised that romance, or female power, as part of mating is somewhat new to us.


----------



## Thundarr

ocotillo said:


> Is there a significance to 1914 that I'm missing, or is it just a number chosen randomly as an example of a simpler time?


As it relates to my opinion on the topic anything more than a few decades still applies.


----------



## Caribbean Man

jld said:


> Well, I disagree. My understanding is that romance only became a norm around the 14th or 15th centuries. I think it started with Alienor of Aquitaine? I do not know much medieval history, but I thought it was in her time that women started to persuade men that chivalry was a good thing.
> 
> Humans have a pretty brutish history. I am not at all surprised that romance, or female power, as part of mating is somewhat new to us.


Well we agree because my I was using the same terms of reference as the OP,ie; 100 years ago.

The idea of romance in marriage and dating became popular somewhere around the late 18th century.

Before that , most marriages in Western societies were either formally or informally " arranged."

I also agree that the history prior to that was brutish, but I don't understand how romance = female power?
Both men and women have always been highly capable of intimate emotional bonding and connection.


----------



## Thundarr

SimplyAmorous said:


> I guess I find your opening post a little offending to Good men -to be honest but I'm one who likes the roles of the good old days .. (God help me for admitting that in modern society)....but I sure agree with you....where it is going --even some of the good (at least I feel) seems to have gotten lost...
> 
> Do you look down on those who see value in that sort of set up...the traditional marriage? I just kinda get that vibe from you.. but I don't know..


SA, I suspect your hubby likes knowing that you choose a traditional lifestyle because that's what you want and not due to the fact it's your only choice. IMO it makes your marriage more special to both of you.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

SimplyAmorous said:


> People are contributing to your thread, isn't that GOOD ..you sound exhausted dealing with your own thread.. some people start threads here and don't even get any replies.. I think it's great others are contributing so much..


A lot is lost in written communication and we tend to fill in those things, especially emotions, to make a full picture of people and dialogues so I understand why this might seem to be the case. While I am frustrated that I seem to be continually misunderstood, I think the discussion, by in large, is great.



SimplyAmorous said:


> I guess I find your opening post a little offending to Good men -to be honest but I'm one who likes the roles of the good old days .. (God help me for admitting that in modern society)....but I sure agree with you....where it is going --even some of the good (at least I feel) seems to have gotten lost...


There was a lot of good in the system. I think there is also a danger of romanticizing the past and overlooking how difficult things where. 

A parallel narrative is South Africa. I have a number friends who have left SA and they frequently wax nostalgic over the great country SA used to be. And objectively SA is a mess today compared how it was in the 20th century. Murder, rape, corruption, depressed economy, urban decline ( at least in joburg) That said I can't find many of them that would wish for apartheid back.

For myself, I obviously cannot give a women's perspective, but if I had a daughter I would much rather see her have the choice of fully living up to her potential than follow a prescribed role. 

I am curious how you would feel about that.



SimplyAmorous said:


> Do you look down on those who see value in that sort of set up...the traditional marriage? I just kinda get that vibe from you.. but I don't know..


No, I don't look down on anyone and I do not have a problem with traditional marriage. Except that I have one that isn't working. :rofl:

This is an example of where I am becoming a foil for all things "feminist". I have said nothing against traditional marriage, but this image that I am this sort of counter culture activist is being projected on me. 



SimplyAmorous said:


> And morally.. where is your compass ?? What do you feel is important .. where are WE missing it ...in how we teach / and be that example to our children ??


I am basically a libertarian humanist. My morality is the product of the balance and tension between individual freedoms and human well being. I don't pretend to have many answers as to how to achieve that. I don't have a model for marriage to propose to you. I think it is something couples need to figure out for themselves. Perhaps that is the change of the last 100 years--that relationships are less and less proscribed by culture and more and more by the choice of the individuals. That does not sound like such a bad thing when you say it that way.


----------



## Jung_admirer

ScrambledEggs said:


> 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"


Negative and immoral? That's a very strong statement to describe a partner. 'Nice guy/gal' is an adaptation based on an incorrect understanding that they are are not worthy to have their needs met by a partner. It is not an intentional ploy, but rather a subconscious coping mechanism.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

Jung_admirer said:


> Negative and immoral? That's a very strong statement to describe a partner. 'Nice guy/gal' is an adaptation based on an incorrect understanding that they are are not worthy to have their needs met by a partner. It is not an intentional ploy, but rather a subconscious coping mechanism.


I described a behavior as negative not a person. 

A lot of people have invoked that NNMNG concepts and assumed that is what I am talking about. I did not actually draw from NMMNG, but I understand the confusion.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

Caribbean Man said:


> To me the idea that men need to step up to the plate and provide more in terms of emotional involvement in a marriage simply because a woman has a higher earning capacity is self depreciating, which ironically is a typical passive aggressive state of mind.


What did I type that would lead you believe that I said that all men should step up their game, or that economics was once the only factor in choosing a spouse? You are attributing things to me I did not put forward.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Thundarr said:


> *SA, I suspect your hubby likes knowing that you choose a traditional lifestyle because that's what you want and not due to the fact it's your only choice. IMO it makes your marriage more special to both of you*.


Indeed it does.. and it has worked so well for us... we are very proud / thankful of where we are financially today considering we would be considered Lower income by most's standards...

We've never had a fight over money in the last 25 yrs.... (I'm more frugal over him!)...I handle every dime that comes in, never been late on a bill/ pay our credit cards in full...(so I earn cash -they don't like customers like me!)....If something happens to him, we have life Insurance.. I wouldn't drown financially in the event of his Death (though I would emotionally) ..and I'm so not worried he is going to cheat on me or leave me.. though some feel that is presumptuous of any SAH wife to say.... 

I married a fine man... Honestly I have such strong views on this.. if I stepped out on my H, I would be an utter MONSTER of a woman.. and I swear, I would NOT hurt him.. I would not feel I deserved anything.. so his life would be ruined...because I was a SAHM.. 

Neither of us are worried about this in the least. Though he could die on me ..It is a risk I decided long ago was worth the taking for the happiness we both get from *this lifestyle*..

We have so much more time together and with our children.. life is not hurried, I am less stressed...he does the manly things I can't do and I handle near everything else so when he comes home, he can relax...and have time with his family.. 

I don't see my risk any different than some other risks that people make in their youth, or throughout their lives.. as we can choose many paths in life for our happiness & purpose.. we also can choose which risks to take to achieve them.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

Trickster said:


> Soon after our daughter was born, I had an accident and couldn't work. We just purchased a home, we had some savings, I was earning good money. After some medical bills, me not being able to earn money, and not even able to walk without agonizing pain, we were broke pretty quick. My wife did go back to work part time, but we had to sell our home. After all her education, she had zero earning power.
> The worst thing in the world was when I lost my earning power. I was useless.
> I am better now, i work hard and I am a good provider.
> 
> What bothers me and scares the heck out of me now is that my wife has no interest in working on herself if that happens to me again. The more I make, the more she wants to improve our status...My wife recently went back to work making $9.00/ hr. Our daughter is 10 now. She is content with that.
> 
> I am sorta that "nice guy" . Years ago, before we married, we broke up and she moved to another city. Six months later, she wanted to come back.
> 
> Was it love?
> 
> Did she miss me?
> 
> Was she financially broke?
> 
> I was never rich. I just worked hard and paid my bills...oh.... I was "nice". That was enough for her then and its enough for her now. I dont think I was immoral or dishonest then or now.


I would not assume that your marriage exists for the wrong reasons. Moreover I don't see it as immoral to be in a marriage where the women depends on you financially. I do think it is shaky ground for a man to expect that to be enough. It is subtle difference, but understanding that point is helpful to avoid misunderstanding what I put forward. I am not judging marriage just a specific behavior with respect to marriage by some men.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

ScrambledEggs said:


> What did I type that would lead you believe that I said that all men should step up their game, or that economics was once the only factor in choosing a spouse? You are attributing things to me I did not put forward.


I tend to see you speaking this very clearly in your opening post .. ...maybe not the *ALL* MEN. but the Chivalrous Gentlemen ...those nice men who want to protect & Provide... they are not enough and need to step up their game...BECAUSE WOMEN SIMPLY DON'T NEED THAT ANYMORE.. . 



> *Scambeled eggs said*: 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.....
> 
> 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'm not saying I even disagree with you ! You're right !


----------



## ReformedHubby

ScrambledEggs said:


> 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.


I'm not so sure this is true. I guess I would need to know what "extras" you're referring to. 

I'm assuming that this nice guy you are referring to in the original post actually has a personality and is at least fun to be with. If that's the case in today's world he would be fine. Being yourself is honestly enough for most relationships (as long as there is chemistry). 

I have a quite a few single friends in the 30ish to 40ish range and none of them are lonely when it comes to female companionship. There are all kinds of women out there that appreciate the companionship of a "nice" man with a job. Independence is fine, but it can't hold you at night. People don't need a disaster to want a relationship. Most healthy adults that are single actually want someone "nice" to share their life with.

Although not the intent of your original post, to me it honestly comes across the same as the doom and gloom the PUA authors try to sell men. They want us to believe that women don't appreciate a good man because they don't need one anymore. They want us to think our entire worth is in our paycheck. I'm not buying that. There are just way too many happy couples out there for this to be true.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

ScrambledEggs said:


> *There was a lot of good in the system. I think there is also a danger of romanticizing the past and overlooking how difficult things where.*


 As in all things.. it's imperative to look and evaluate both sides of anything...to gleam the good ... without destroying it totally.. kinda like separating the wheat from the chaff...learn from history...tweak ..but do not destroy... 

Many young people today ...they miss the red flags or they are so big on Partying ..they miss all kinds of important things... they don't care to listen to their elders or those who have lived & learned.. ..we keep repeating the same mistakes -despite all the warnings around us.. 



> *For myself, I obviously cannot give a women's perspective, but if I had a daughter I would much rather see her have the choice of fully living up to her potential than follow a prescribed role.
> 
> I am curious how you would feel about that.*


 I feel many today , because of the changes in society... would look upon me as someone who has wasted my potential.. and really.. I am not sure what to do with that..

Sometimes I think I would have made an awesome Therapist ....I LOVE talking to people about the inner workings of their mind & offering ways to help in relationship dynamics...I have great enthusiasm for these things.... but I always dreamed of a larger family & being a stay at Home Mom....so here I am..

I lived my dream.. if I die tomorrow.. I would not regret what little I have done or what influence I may have had on the circle in my path...I would be greatly missed and mourned over....Am I worth less because I don't make as much $$, or hold a title to hang on my wall...if I don't drive a newer car...

What is most valuable to us...this often directs our choices ...(so long as we can afford to live, pay our bills...and not be dependent on outsiders. Yes, this is important !)...

We have a daughter...we do our best to help her make wise choices, to weigh the pros & cons in everything she sets her hands to... I count the men she attaches herself to- to be as BIG of a deal....as her getting a college degree -some women would disagree with me on that and feel the educational choices are far more important. I just don't see anyone in our family the type who wouldn't want to grow up & have their own families/ marriage, the whole thing - given our example to them.... but time will tell. 



> *No, I don't look down on anyone and I do not have a problem with traditional marriage. Except that I have one that isn't working.* :rofl:


 I appreciate that ...and sorry to hear.. I'm not one to feel that this is the best model for everyone.. Not at all.. It takes 2 dedicated people who derive Joy and contentment from such a lifestyle and can live within their means to pull it off.. 



> I am basically a libertarian humanist. My morality is the product of the balance and tension between individual freedoms and human well being. I don't pretend to have many answers as to how to achieve that. I don't have a model for marriage to propose to you. *I think it is something couples need to figure out for themselves.* Perhaps that is the change of the last 100 years--that relationships are less and less proscribed by culture and more and more by the choice of the individuals. That does not sound like such a bad thing when you say it that way.


 I have no problem with that either...what I don't care for is some of the snide mocking like ...."Oh that's archaic...we're not living in the 1940's" ...inferring that anyone who would depend on a man today is foolish ...and ask ..."don't you care what women fought for?" .. I don't know... it's a slam against those who choose a more traditional marriage/ lifestyle.. 

But ya know...that's LIFE.. it ain't going away. I will stand tall .. even if I am just a boring old stay at Home Mom who has wasted my potential ...and some feel I am lazy eating bon bons at home watching soap operas all day..

Also I fully get the fact.. this totally lowers my dating prospects if Husband would ever die...as Men today expect women to be working and contributing financially at least 2/3 as much as they are.. many would see this as a deal breaker even.. to protect themselves .


----------



## Happyfamily

greenfern said:


> I disagree. While MARRIED, they partners have equal economic power. After divorce, if it happened, there is a huge differential in economic power and everyone here would agree the person who chose to be a SAHM/D is significantly economically disadvantaged, and probably will be so for the rest of their live.
> 
> The man can definitely sue for half custody of their children and will be involved with the kids for the rest of their lives. The woman will only get half the assets at a point in time (and possibly some assistance for a couple years after). The two situations are totally different.


lol. You keep using a phony gender-war term (economic power) that is nonexistent in economics courses, and superimposing modern conditions upon centuries-ago social conventions.

Alimony is something you don't even understand as it existed then. The entire point of alimony was to keep the woman's economic condition at parity post-divorce. 

That is something that ruined a man's potential to raise another family. He still had to support the old wife and kids. Not child support. _Alimony_. It is one of the reasons divorce was so less common then.


----------



## Happyfamily

ScrambledEggs said:


> I don't have a problem with that. I would not call you powerless, or disadvantaged. I would not suggest that you have no economic power. Where do you get that I do? You have marched an army of straw man at me in this thread.


Yes you did. In accepting the phony gender war term "economic power". I do not have to be employed in the labor market to have economic power: I get it by being married, and earn it in every same respect. A wife is a job. 

The great thing about the job is that the earnings potential is equal to any man, including the President of the country, Bill Gates, Sam Walton and any other billionaire. 

It is prime stupidity to say that this earnings potential vanishes after divorce. A good wife is a highly marketable trade. If you want to reduce your marketability though, just make sure any man you meet post-divorce understands you are a rabid feminist. On the other hand, if you want a good job then let men know you view marriage as a team effort and that you appreciate a man for what he does. 




> But even then all these straw men have nothing to do with my original point. If your interested in that, read my OP.


Oh yes it does. 

It is true that the removal of _alimony_ obligation has meant a man is free to pursue a whole new life and family without supporting his previous wife. 

By women being trained that they have no contractural value in marriage and only have value in the labor market, we have inculcated anti-marriage identities in both men and women.

I am in agreement with your "things have changed" premise. But I am a stickler for being exact in any discussion. The PUA framing is antagonistic towards women just as the feminist framing is antagonistic towards men.


----------



## jld

Caribbean Man said:


> Well we agree because my I was using the same terms of reference as the OP,ie; 100 years ago.
> 
> The idea of romance in marriage and dating became popular somewhere around the late 18th century.
> 
> Before that , most marriages in Western societies were either formally or informally " arranged."
> 
> I also agree that the history prior to that was brutish, but I don't understand how romance = female power?
> Both men and women have always been highly capable of intimate emotional bonding and connection.


Well, I read something a decade or so ago about how the French court was the first to accept chivalry, and the art of persuading a woman, rather than forcing her, to accept male dominance. I thought it had some to do with Alienor, but I really can't remember.

It takes a while for the lower classes to fully adopt the practices of the upper class. That might explain the time lag between the aristocracy and the adoption of romantic practices in the late 18th century.

Women don't have power when men rely on their physical strength and financial power. The French court was allowing women power by giving a nod to chivalrous, and not brutish, practices. That was my understanding, anyway.


----------



## FormerSelf

Coming from the viewpoint of a recovering Nice Guy, I can see that although some men today have shelved much of their masculinity, their desires come out in passive aggressive ways in the form of manipulative and controlling behavior. I am sure this is what drove my wife away. I have had to learn to unmesh myself from her emotions and not hover, not fix, not rescue...not make my wife responsible for my male validation.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Happyfamily said:


> lol. You keep using a phony gender-war term (economic power) that is nonexistent in economics courses, and superimposing modern conditions upon centuries-ago social conventions.
> 
> Alimony is something you don't even understand as it existed then. The entire point of alimony was to keep the woman's economic condition at parity post-divorce.
> 
> That is something that ruined a man's potential to raise another family. He still had to support the old wife and kids. Not child support. _Alimony_. It is one of the reasons divorce was so less common then.


And indeed, alimony sprung up after a bunch of divorces of rich men leaving women suddenly means-less.


----------



## greenfern

Happyfamily said:


> lol. You keep using a phony gender-war term (economic power) that is nonexistent in economics courses, and superimposing modern conditions upon centuries-ago social conventions.
> 
> Alimony is something you don't even understand as it existed then. The entire point of alimony was to keep the woman's economic condition at parity post-divorce.
> 
> That is something that ruined a man's potential to raise another family. He still had to support the old wife and kids. Not child support. _Alimony_. It is one of the reasons divorce was so less common then.


Well I didn't mean it as a formal economic term I just meant that in terms of the balance of power in a relationship, the person who works/has career has more power over their financial future. They have more security. I don't really understand how you can argue that. Lifetime alimony is basically unheard of these days afaik so the woman's economic condition is no longer at parity post divorce. 

Do you think women who are SAHM throughout their 20s/30s are equally able to earn a living post divorce as their husbands?


----------



## greenfern

And I think its obvious I'm talking about the present or at least the last 20 years or so in terms of alimony. I really have no idea what kind of alimony was present prior to that point. What kind of 'centuries old' social conventions are you talking about? In a lot of the world women could not even initiate a divorce.


----------



## Happyfamily

greenfern said:


> Well I didn't mean it as a formal economic term


Reason requires terms that have fixed meanings, not meanings that every different person wants to ascribe to them.




> I just meant that in terms of the balance of power in a relationship, the person who works/has career has more power over their financial future.


Stop right there. My husband does not have power over me because he is working now. You are wrong. You have no power to tell me the status of my own marriage. 

This is precisely what irks me - the hubris of telling other couples who has the power in their relationships. What gall. 






> Do you think women who are SAHM throughout their 20s/30s are equally able to earn a living post divorce as their husbands?


Yes, I absolutely do. Because I have a brain and don't buy into your false framing. A wife is a contractural position and I can take on another contract as wife with a man who makes even more than my husband. Were that all I cared about I would not even be with him now. I'd be with some wall street broker type. 

The fact I have an engineering degree probably means I don't have the fears a lot of women do and don't buy into the propaganda that my only value is in the wage/salary market. I know my value as a wife and companion. The pay is pretty darned good.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

Happyfamily said:


> Yes you did. In accepting the phony gender war term "economic power". I do not have to be employed in the labor market to have economic power: I get it by being married, and earn it in every same respect. A wife is a job.
> 
> The great thing about the job is that the earnings potential is equal to any man, including the President of the country, Bill Gates, Sam Walton and any other billionaire.
> 
> It is prime stupidity to say that this earnings potential vanishes after divorce. A good wife is a highly marketable trade. If you want to reduce your marketability though, just make sure any man you meet post-divorce understands you are a rabid feminist. On the other hand, if you want a good job then let men know you view marriage as a team effort and that you appreciate a man for what he does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes it does.
> 
> It is true that the removal of _alimony_ obligation has meant a man is free to pursue a whole new life and family without supporting his previous wife.
> 
> By women being trained that they have no contractural value in marriage and only have value in the labor market, we have inculcated anti-marriage identities in both men and women.
> 
> I am in agreement with your "things have changed" premise. But I am a stickler for being exact in any discussion. The PUA framing is antagonistic towards women just as the feminist framing is antagonistic towards men.



I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree over our separate opinions on what I said and meant in this thread. 

I'd like to think I have a lot of credibility in that regard but you are welcome to your opinions about what I think as you are in anything.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

jld said:


> Well, I read something a decade or so ago about how the French court was the first to accept chivalry, and the art of persuading a woman, rather than forcing her, to accept male dominance. I thought it had some to do with Alienor, but I really can't remember.
> 
> It takes a while for the lower classes to fully adopt the practices of the upper class. That might explain the time lag between the aristocracy and the adoption of romantic practices in the late 18th century.
> 
> Women don't have power when men rely on their physical strength and financial power. The French court was allowing women power by giving a nod to chivalrous, and not brutish, practices. That was my understanding, anyway.


I think that largely what we know of today as courtly love is the Victorian romanticization of what you refer to in history. Historical courtly almost never led to marriage as I understand it.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

Happyfamily said:


> Stop right there. My husband does not have power over me because he is working now. You are wrong. You have no power to tell me the status of my own marriage.
> .


This absolutest version of semantics over the meaning "economic power" is getting in the way of the discussion. We all now understand that you believe these two words can only have one meaning --the feminist usage--and that you object to that meaning as a fallacy. 

However, that is not the meaning or use that anyone here has given those words but you. It is just a word for independent economic security.


----------



## EleGirl

Happyfamily said:


> Stop right there. My husband does not have power over me because he is working now. You are wrong. You have no power to tell me the status of my own marriage.
> 
> This is precisely what irks me - the hubris of telling other couples who has the power in their relationships. What gall.


Greenfern did not say that you husband has power over you. She stated that the person who has been working for years has more financial clout/power/whatever than a SAHS. 



greenfern said:


> Do you think women who are SAHM throughout their 20s/30s are equally able to earn a living post divorce as their husbands?





Happyfamily said:


> Yes, I absolutely do. Because I have a brain and don't buy into your false framing. A wife is a contractural position and I can take on another contract as wife with a man who makes even more than my husband. Were that all I cared about I would not even be with him now. I'd be with some wall street broker type.


If your current marriage were to end for whatever reason, how will you support yourself for the years that it takes to find another man to marry who will support you? 



Happyfamily said:


> The fact I have an engineering degree probably means I don't have the fears a lot of women do and don't buy into the propaganda that my only value is in the wage/salary market. I know my value as a wife and companion. The pay is pretty darned good.


I interview and hire a lot of engineers. In the companies I’ve worked for none of them would even consider hiring someone who has a 20/30 year old engineering degree and has not worked in engineering since. Shoot, they will not hire someone who has been unemployed for over 2 years. A person like this is considered a risk. In today’s job market employers do not have to take the risk of hiring unproven candidates.

To become employable, the person would need to go back to school and refresh their academics with the best outcome being to get an MS. When and if they could get a job after that, it would be at entry level. So their pay would reflect that as well.


----------



## Thundarr

EleGirl said:


> I interview and hire a lot of engineers. In the companies I’ve worked for none of them would even consider hiring someone who has a 20/30 year old engineering degree and has not worked in engineering since. Shoot, they will not hire someone who has been unemployed for over 2 years. A person like this is considered a risk. In today’s job market employers do not have to take the risk of hiring unproven candidates.
> 
> To become employable, the person would need to go back to school and refresh their academics with the best outcome being to get an MS. When and if they could get a job after that, it would be at entry level. So their pay would reflect that as well.


This is the reality and it's not going to change. Anyone is free to believe whatever utopian thought they wish however when put to the test, reality wins over opinion. Those like Ele who have been part of the hiring process will agree that putting a career on hold is very expensive. Certainly it's that way for higher education positions.


----------



## coffee4me

Thundarr said:


> This is the reality and it's not going to change. Anyone is free to believe whatever utopian thought they wish however when put to the test, reality wins over opinion. Those like Ele who have been part of the hiring process will agree that putting a career on hold is very expensive. Certainly it's that way for higher education positions.


I've hired hundreds of people for a minimum wage job and being out of the workforce for a decade or so, works against an applicant at that level also.


----------



## Trickster

My wife had a hard time finding work after being a SAHM for 10 years...



What all the SAHM should be a little concerned with... the ones who have a happy marriage is to know what happens if your husband has an accident and can't work in his same field? 

What about medical bills?

What happens after the emergency money runs out?

I know some have life insurance, some may have Aflac. Thats not enough!

No way in the world was my wife was able to earn enough when I hurt myself 10 years ago. 

A woman should never never never depend on her husband financially.


----------



## Forest

Happyfamily said:


> Reason requires terms that have fixed meanings, not meanings that every different person wants to ascribe to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop right there. My husband does not have power over me because he is working now. You are wrong. You have no power to tell me the status of my own marriage.
> 
> This is precisely what irks me - the hubris of telling other couples who has the power in their relationships. What gall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I absolutely do. Because I have a brain and don't buy into your false framing. A wife is a contractural position and I can take on another contract as wife with a man who makes even more than my husband. Were that all I cared about I would not even be with him now. I'd be with some wall street broker type.
> 
> The fact I have an engineering degree probably means I don't have the fears a lot of women do and don't buy into the propaganda that my only value is in the wage/salary market. I know my value as a wife and companion. The pay is pretty darned good.



You can argue with her if you want, apologize if your inner wimp tells you to, but she could dust your broom if she felt like it. She's not a victim.


----------



## over20

Forest said:


> You can argue with her if you want, apologize if your inner wimp tells you to, but she could dust your broom if she felt like it. She's not a victim.


The most loving and hardworking wives would find work, no matter what it was to keep their families a float...SAHM are very strong and resourceful.....


----------



## over20

Trickster said:


> My wife had a hard time finding work after being a SAHM for 10 years...
> 
> 
> 
> What all the SAHM should be a little concerned with... the ones who have a happy marriage is to know what happens if your husband has an accident and can't work in his same field?
> 
> What about medical bills?
> 
> What happens after the emergency money runs out?
> 
> I know some have life insurance, some may have Aflac. Thats not enough!
> 
> No way in the world was my wife was able to earn enough when I hurt myself 10 years ago.
> 
> A woman should never never never depend on her husband financially.



You are a kind soul Trickstar....things will work out for the better...your in my thoughts and prayers....always have hope...


----------



## EleGirl

over20 said:


> The most loving and hardworking wives would find work, no matter what it was to keep their families a float...SAHM are very strong and resourceful.....


A person who has not worked for 10, 20, 30 years will have a very hard time finding work. Most SAHS who are out of the workforce that long are lucky if they get hired for a minimum wage job. This is a reality.


----------



## EleGirl

Trickster said:


> My wife had a hard time finding work after being a SAHM for 10 years...
> 
> 
> 
> What all the SAHM should be a little concerned with... the ones who have a happy marriage is to know what happens if your husband has an accident and can't work in his same field?
> 
> What about medical bills?
> 
> What happens after the emergency money runs out?
> 
> I know some have life insurance, some may have Aflac. Thats not enough!
> 
> No way in the world was my wife was able to earn enough when I hurt myself 10 years ago.
> 
> A woman should never never never depend on her husband financially.


What you say here is exactly the point that many of us are trying to make here. A lot of women have been through this. It's very hard to reenter the work force after decades of not being employed and make an income that can support herself much less a family.

ETA: By the way, that last sentence of your, that's what my father told all five of his daughters when we were in high school.


----------



## RandomDude

I've allowed a few people to use me as a reference even though they've never worked for me, it's a good way to close the gap on one's resume.

If you wish to be dead honest however, there's always work available through networking.


----------



## EleGirl

RandomDude said:


> I've allowed a few people to use me as a reference even though they've never worked for me, it's a good way to close the gap on one's resume.
> 
> If you wish to be dead honest however, there's always work available through networking.


I've also let a few people use me as a reference to fill a hole in their resume.

But it's very hard to fill a hole for 10/20/30 years. 

Engineering was brought up ... few, if any, engineering company will hire someone without references that they can checked. By that I mean they call a company's HR department and verify employment.

Many jobs require actual job experience so that the person can walk in and start working right away. OJT just does not work for many jobs.


----------



## Caribbean Man

RandomDude said:


> I've allowed a few people to use me as a reference even though they've never worked for me, it's a good way to close the gap on one's resume.


I have done that as well.


----------



## Caribbean Man

EleGirl said:


> Engineering was brought up ... few, if any, engineering company will hire someone without references that they can checked. By that I mean they call a company's HR department and verify employment.
> 
> Many jobs require actual job experience so that the person can walk in and start working right away. OJT just does not work for many jobs.


And then there are always _other_ options.

The reality is, having any degree doesn't guarantee one a decent job, period.

I got my Mechanical Engineering degree more than 25 years ago and didn't work much in that field because work was difficult to find back then due to a downturn in our economy. I opted to start my own business in a completely different field.

If I wanted to reenter the workforce now it would be almost impossible for me to get a job as an foreman on an offshore oil platform or a refinery, much less an engineer.
But having a business has made me a bit financially secure. My wife works with me, and she has also been out of the workforce for almost 17 years. If I die, we have insurance that would pay her. She also has invested her money in a way that can afford her a comfortable life. For instance , she owns a property, that can be rented.

Sometime ago, I was talking with my nephew who's also a year first year mechanical engineering student.
I asked him what were his plans after attaining his degree. He dreams of working for a company and earning a decent salary.

I told him no. 
Having a degree doesn't guarantee one a decent standard of life in the future.

Owning a business that generates a positive income stream ,and wise financial planning and investments does.


----------



## Trickster

I know some people think I really am a "Trickster". I know I say many crazy things...

What I really want for my wife is to be financially independent, have her own income stream, and not be dependent on me entirely... If I am a jerk husband and unloving, uncaring, I want my wife to have the ease to move on with her life, if that's what she wants. Half of our wealth is not enough for her survival. She owes it to herself. I want that for her.

She is having the hardest time finding a job that pays. 

She did get friends to lie about voids in her work history as well as her " family" business. It didn't help.


----------



## Omego

Every single SAHM I've known who has put their career on hold to raise children has either had to go back into the work force at a lower level position or completely change jobs and go independent. They all had high level degrees and executive positions prior to putting their career on hold. I can think of at least 10 persons as I type including myself!

Let's be realistic please. A woman in her early 40s who has been out of the work force for several years is not as marketable as someone in her late 20s/early 30s who is still active.

@ Happy Family: It seems like you are describing an alternate reality in a parallel universe! Your optimism is refreshing, but I just don't agree.


----------



## Trickster

over20 said:


> You are a kind soul Trickstar....things will work out for the better...your in my thoughts and prayers....always have hope...


When I had my accident, I was in so much pain I couldn't walk sit down or even roll over in bed. Don't want to even say how painful it was to take a $hit.

During that time, my wife helped me with rehab. She helped me with side leg lifts several times a day. After several month, while she was lifting my leg, I lifted it faster than her hand. At that point I started to cry. She ask if it was hurting. Yes, it is... I was crying because I was able to lift my leg..

She said "told you everything would work out"

She has way for faith in me than I have with my ability to take care if my family...Somehow, I do very well without college and having my own business. I am operating on pure faith and luck.


----------



## Trickster

Omego said:


> Every single SAHM I've known who has put their career on hold to raise children has either had to go back into the work force at a lower level position or completely change jobs and go independent. They all had high level degrees and executive positions prior to putting their career on hold. I can think of at least 10 persons as I type including myself!
> 
> Let's be realistic please. A woman in her early 40s who has been out of the work force for several years is not as marketable as someone in her late 20s/early 30s who is still active.
> 
> @ Happy Family: It seems like you are describing an alternate reality in a parallel universe! Your optimism is refreshing, but I just don't agree.




I have been self employed for 12 years now. Last year, work was very slow for me and I started applying for additional work... Nobody wanted to hire me for part time work. I had no proof that I was actually working full time in my own business. They mostly wanted to know why after being self-employed, why would I want to work for somebody else. So, I just worked harder to increase my business. I don't think I will ever work for somebody else ever again. 

Even if I went back to school, I would have this huge gap of not having a boss to answer to... 

The only way is to have connections before hand.


----------



## Omego

Trickster said:


> The only way is to have connections before hand.


Precisely. This helped me out a lot as well.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Trickster said:


> My wife had a hard time finding work after being a SAHM for 10 years...
> 
> 
> 
> What all the SAHM should be a little concerned with... the ones who have a happy marriage is to know what happens if your husband has an accident and can't work in his same field?
> 
> What about medical bills?
> 
> What happens after the emergency money runs out?
> 
> I know some have life insurance, some may have Aflac. Thats not enough!
> 
> No way in the world was my wife was able to earn enough when I hurt myself 10 years ago.
> 
> *A woman should never never never depend on her husband financially*.


Here we go again... What if a family is debt free.. (I am meaning house, land, credit cards, cars, everything.. we own 50 acres (our house & land is worth a pretty penny so I would say our net worth is UP THERE).... we have enough saved in cash that I could live off of it for 2 + years if he was disabled, or dies -not counting life insurance...or what we have in our 401K I could take out)...

My biggest immediate concern would be Health insurance, I would be VERY STRESSED OUT over this... Me and my H was stricklers about not being in debt, when we got our house loan, (we cut it in half paying it off in 7 yrs).... we have never taken out a loan for anything in our marriage of 25 yrs.. 

I am not one who lives a lavish lifestyle.. was never used to it .. so I don't need to to maintain something that another family is used to -if that makes any sense, we don't even carry cell phones but 1 old tracfone -for emergencies (cheapest way to go )...works for me...I'm happy!

Life would be hard.. I'd have to pick myself up and probably work 2 jobs.. I don't know... I guess you do what you have to do....when the unfortunate shows up at your door.. 

I might have to sell our house.. they have temp agencies around here so one always has a Job / maybe go to college, I am not sure really.. if he hangs on long enough, at his Union Job, there is money for the surviving wife.. 

I get so tired of feeling judged over this. I fully understand the risks though.. I am just willing to take them. And feel I do have something to fall back upon.. if anything... our home & property is a living dream, I could rent rooms here -in addition to working a lower paying job.. to make it .. 

There are ways.. so long as I wasn't so damn poor I had to go live in public housing. .. now that would make me want to end it all.


----------



## EleGirl

Caribbean Man said:


> And then there are always _other_ options.
> 
> The reality is, having any degree doesn't guarantee one a decent job, period.
> 
> I got my Mechanical Engineering degree more than 25 years ago and didn't work much in that field because work was difficult to find back then due to a downturn in our economy. I opted to start my own business in a completely different field.
> 
> If I wanted to reenter the workforce now it would be almost impossible for me to get a job as an foreman on an offshore oil platform or a refinery, much less an engineer.
> But having a business has made me a bit financially secure. My wife works with me, and she has also been out of the workforce for almost 17 years. If I die, we have insurance that would pay her. She also has invested her money in a way that can afford her a comfortable life. For instance , she owns a property, that can be rented.
> 
> Sometime ago, I was talking with my nephew who's also a year first year mechanical engineering student.
> I asked him what were his plans after attaining his degree. He dreams of working for a company and earning a decent salary.
> 
> I told him no.
> Having a degree doesn't guarantee one a decent standard of life in the future.
> 
> Owning a business that generates a positive income stream ,and wise financial planning and investments does.


I used the example of engineering because someone else on here said that she had an engineering degree and so she had no concerns about being able to get a job even after 20/30 years of unemployment. What I did not say is that a degree is essential to find a job.

I don't think you understand what the job market is like in the USA at this time. It can be very hard to find a job. There are millions here who have been looking for years now and cannot find anything. The job growth has been in part time minimum wage jobs.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

ScrambledEggs said:


> My point is that many 'Nice Guys" believe their nicety should win them more credit than it does. And I mean this even for those that are not very passive aggressive about it.
> 
> The "nice guy" provider archetype got us women 100 years ago because women needed a man to not die or have a horrible life. The "nice Guy" depended on an awful world to drive women to him. Now that women don't need us, more is needed. I think a lot of men are still caught up on the idea that being a good person and a provider is enough for a marriage today--It's not for many women. They have their own economic power and the awareness of a social safety net.


I may be off base with how YOU are specifically defining "nice guy". I'll look at how I define it.

1. As a "nice" guy, I make sure my wife is satisfied sexually. I put as much of a premium on her sexual satisfaction as my own...if not more.
2. As a "nice" guy, I make a concerted effort to make sure my wife feels that I both love her and lust for her EVERY DAY. I feel it's important for her to know that on a daily basis.
3. As a "nice" guy, I like to do random acts of kindness and/or love because sometimes having flowers randomly delivered to your work as a 8 month along pregnant woman can make a very tiring day very bright.
4. As a "nice" guy, I make sure every special occasion is....special. I take the time to keep a word doc throughout the year of things my wife mentions that she likes for christmas and birthday presents. We do things on our anniversary that we talk about wanting to but never get around to doing them like boat cruises with dinner etc.
5. As a "nice" guy, I get the door for her, fix things, basically be her rock and "hero". Yes, I actually like being a little bit of Knight in Shining Armor for my wife. And no, I don't consider that a bad thing. I jump up and kill spiders when one sneaks up on her in the shower, I leave work at a moments notice when she's broken down on the side of the road. etc.
6. As a "nice" guy, I think it's important to be a great listener and friend to my wife. Knowing my wife sees me as her best friend (her words) means a lot to me. 
7. As a "nice" guy, I also thinks it's important to be a husband who can fix things around the house and car, to be able to have conversations about numerous topics. To be well read and knowledgeable about the world around us.

These traits and behaviors are because I'm nice and in love. 



Now I'm also a strong man with plenty of self esteem. I KNOW how valuable my "niceness" is. I know how much love and how special it makes my wife feel. Having a "nice" husband like me is EXTREMELY valuable. I know I'm a fantastic husband. I work damn hard at being one because my wife deserves the best because of how incredible of a wife and mother she is.

Now, my marriage also fits into your "modern" situation. My wife makes double what I make. She doesn't need me financially. She needs me emotionally, for friendship, as a father to her sons, and physically. 

Now if your definition of "nice" is different, than that's fine. But I'm going by the basic, standard idea of what a "nice" person is. Not the TAM nod and wink approach to definitions.

I've seen "nice guy" refer to the following and or combinations of the following
Doormats
Passive Aggressive
Co-Dependent 
etc.

I like to call those people what they are...
Nice to me is 
nice adjective \ˈnīs\
: giving pleasure or joy 
: good and enjoyable
: attractive or of good quality
: kind, polite, and friendly


----------



## EleGirl

SimplyAmorous said:


> Here we go again... What if a family is debt free.. (I am meaning house, land, credit cards, cars, everything.. we own 50 acres (our house & land is worth a pretty penny so I would say our net worth is UP THERE).... we have enough saved in cash that I could live off of it for 2 + years if he was disabled, or dies -not counting life insurance...or what we have in our 401K I could take out)...
> 
> My biggest immediate concern would be Health insurance, I would be VERY STRESSED OUT over this... Me and my H was stricklers about not being in debt, when we got our house loan, (we cut it in half paying it off in 7 yrs).... we have never taken out a loan for anything in our marriage of 25 yrs..
> 
> I am not one who lives a lavish lifestyle.. was never used to it .. so I don't need to to maintain something that another family is used to -if that makes any sense, we don't even carry cell phones but 1 old tracfone -for emergencies (cheapest way to go )...works for me...I'm happy!
> 
> Life would be hard.. I'd have to pick myself up and probably work 2 jobs.. I don't know... I guess you do what you have to do....when the unfortunate shows up at your door..
> 
> I might have to sell our house.. they have temp agencies around here so one always has a Job / maybe go to college, I am not sure really.. if he hangs on long enough, at his Union Job, there is money for the surviving wife..
> 
> I get so tired of feeling judged over this. I fully understand the risks though.. I am just willing to take them. And feel I do have something to fall back upon.. if anything... our home & property is a living dream, I could rent rooms here -in addition to working a lower paying job.. to make it ..
> 
> There are ways.. so long as I wasn't so damn poor I had to go live in public housing. .. now that would make me want to end it all.


SA, no one is judging you so I don't understand your defensiveness. If you and your husband have planned well so that you and he are taken care of if something happens to him, then good for you guys. No one is saying that you, or any woman, has to have a career working outside the home.

What we are talking about is the reality that many women who have been SAHMs have had to deal with because their life took a wrong turn. These things are often out of a person's control.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

EleGirl said:


> I agree. Women's economic power in the past was mostly tied to the man she married.
> 
> Generally if a woman did not marry her financial pictures was pretty bleak (unless she had a good inheritance), she could not find work that paid equal to what men were paid.
> 
> Widowed women were often left with nothing, not having a husband to support her and the children, she could not get work that well.


I completely agree with this.

I feel very fortunate because I was raised by women who were trailblazers on this front. My grandmother was actually a manager in a factory during WWII. She demanded equal pay and got it and was the only female manager in the entire company. She went on to being a store manager at a store similar to Walmart (on a smaller scale back in the day) during the 60's through 80's. My mother, when my parents divorced when I was 3, went on to become a top selling Real Estate broker, earning in the 6 figure range starting in the late 70's. I never saw women as "needing" men to be happy or to survive and thrive.

I know it wasn't the norm. I know how blessed I was to see how strong and successful women could be on a daily basis.


----------



## Caribbean Man

SimplyAmorous said:


> Here we go again... What if a family is debt free.. (I am meaning house, land, credit cards, cars, everything.. we own 50 acres (our house & land is worth a pretty penny so I would say our net worth is UP THERE).... we have enough saved in cash that I could live off of it for 2 + years if he was disabled, or dies -not counting life insurance...or what we have in our 401K I could take out)...
> 
> My biggest immediate concern would be Health insurance, I would be VERY STRESSED OUT over this... Me and my H was stricklers about not being in debt, when we got our house loan, (we cut it in half paying it off in 7 yrs).... we have never taken out a loan for anything in our marriage of 25 yrs..
> 
> I am not one who lives a lavish lifestyle.. was never used to it .. so I don't need to to maintain something that another family is used to -if that makes any sense, we don't even carry cell phones but 1 old tracfone -for emergencies (cheapest way to go )...works for me...I'm happy!
> 
> Life would be hard.. I'd have to pick myself up and probably work 2 jobs.. I don't know... I guess you do what you have to do....when the unfortunate shows up at your door..
> 
> I might have to sell our house.. they have temp agencies around here so one always has a Job / maybe go to college, I am not sure really.. if he hangs on long enough, at his Union Job, there is money for the surviving wife..
> 
> I get so tired of feeling judged over this. I fully understand the risks though.. I am just willing to take them. And feel I do have something to fall back upon.. if anything... our home & property is a living dream, I could rent rooms here -in addition to working a lower paying job.. to make it ..
> 
> There are ways.. so long as I wasn't so damn poor I had to go live in public housing. .. now that would make me want to end it all.



SA, I understand exactly where you're coming from, and that has been my point since my first post in this thread.

Marriage is an economic union.

The idea that a woman should never have to depend financially on a man in marriage, least she should get divorced , though it might sound nice, is not realistic in today's economic conditions. And I don't think it was ever a reality for the majority of women and men.

Whether or not we realize it, the majority of society are working class people, meaning they live from paycheck to paycheck.

If a working woman got divorced or her husband died and they didn't own their home then she'll still need financial assistance to maintain her kids and herself , pay the mortgage , taxes , bills etc. It would be impossible for her to maintain her pre divorce standard of living, post divorce on her salary alone.
For example,how is she going to pay for her kid's future education, when she has a mortgage and probably a car loan to pay?

Sacrifices would _still_ have to be made, even if she was a career woman.

that's the economic reality of this neo feudalistic system under which we live, namely , capitalism.

If a working man got divorced, he'd have to pay alimony , child support , taxes , a new mortgage or rent , food , clothes etc.

In reality , both husband and wife depend on each other to keep the financial aspect of a marriage / family unit running and progressing.


It would be impossible for a career husband with a SAHM wife to be successful if his wife didn't take care of business at home. That's why the courts offer alimony in the case of divorce. The work a SAHM does does count as work that can be salaried. If she wasn't at home , they would have to pay someone else , namely a maid and a nanny to do her job.

We all choose our different paths , but the reality is that absolutely nothing is guaranteed to make life easier for a woman or even a man if he/she got divorced.

Marriage and raising a family is like two partners running a business. If one pulls out, they have legal entitlements, but it could never be 
" business as usual" for the other partner. There would always be a hard period of adjustment before things get back to normal.


----------



## EleGirl

Dad&Hubby said:


> I may be off base with how YOU are specifically defining "nice guy". I'll look at how I define it.
> 
> 1. As a "nice" guy, I make sure my wife is satisfied sexually. I put as much of a premium on her sexual satisfaction as my own...if not more.
> 2. As a "nice" guy, I make a concerted effort to make sure my wife feels that I both love her and lust for her EVERY DAY. I feel it's important for her to know that on a daily basis.
> 3. As a "nice" guy, I like to do random acts of kindness and/or love because sometimes having flowers randomly delivered to your work as a 8 month along pregnant woman can make a very tiring day very bright.
> 4. As a "nice" guy, I make sure every special occasion is....special. I take the time to keep a word doc throughout the year of things my wife mentions that she likes for christmas and birthday presents. We do things on our anniversary that we talk about wanting to but never get around to doing them like boat cruises with dinner etc.
> 5. As a "nice" guy, I get the door for her, fix things, basically be her rock and "hero". Yes, I actually like being a little bit of Knight in Shining Armor for my wife. And no, I don't consider that a bad thing. I jump up and kill spiders when one sneaks up on her in the shower, I leave work at a moments notice when she's broken down on the side of the road. etc.
> 6. As a "nice" guy, I think it's important to be a great listener and friend to my wife. Knowing my wife sees me as her best friend (her words) means a lot to me.
> 7. As a "nice" guy, I also thinks it's important to be a husband who can fix things around the house and car, to be able to have conversations about numerous topics. To be well read and knowledgeable about the world around us.
> 
> These traits and behaviors are because I'm nice and in love.
> 
> 
> 
> Now I'm also a strong man with plenty of self esteem. I KNOW how valuable my "niceness" is. I know how much love and how special it makes my wife feel. Having a "nice" husband like me is EXTREMELY valuable. I know I'm a fantastic husband. I work damn hard at being one because my wife deserves the best because of how incredible of a wife and mother she is.
> 
> Now, my marriage also fits into your "modern" situation. My wife makes double what I make. She doesn't need me financially. She needs me emotionally, for friendship, as a father to her sons, and physically.
> 
> Now if your definition of "nice" is different, than that's fine. But I'm going by the basic, standard idea of what a "nice" person is. Not the TAM nod and wink approach to definitions.
> 
> I've seen "nice guy" refer to the following and or combinations of the following
> Doormats
> Passive Aggressive
> Co-Dependent
> etc.
> 
> I like to call those people what they are...
> Nice to me is
> nice adjective \ˈnīs\
> : giving pleasure or joy
> : good and enjoyable
> : attractive or of good quality
> : kind, polite, and friendly


The OP's "Nice Guy" is a guy who supports his wife but does not do all the other things that you listed above. What you described is a 'great guy'.


----------



## Caribbean Man

EleGirl said:


> I used the example of engineering because someone else on here said that she had an engineering degree and so she had no concerns about being able to get a job even after 20/30 years of unemployment. What I did not say is that a degree is essential to find a job.
> 
> I don't think you understand what the job market is like in the USA at this time. It can be very hard to find a job. There are millions here who have been looking for years now and cannot find anything. The job growth has been in part time minimum wage jobs.


I understand what's happening up there. In my post i made reference to when i graduated years ago and couldn't find a job, because our economy was flat. The only jobs available were minimum wage jobs which I applied for and was rejected because they told me that I was _over qualified_.

That's why I said there are other options.

I explored my options and started a business from scratch.

Working from home as a SAHM is also another option.

Creating a joint investment portfolio with her husband is another such option.

The reality is , even if she's a working mother, she would still suffer financially from a divorce.

Lets say she earned more than her husband?
Then she'll have to pay alimony , especially if he was a stay at home dad.

It doesn't matter how we twist and turn it, if you are working class living from paycheck to paycheck, divorce hurts and cripples financially.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

EleGirl said:


> The OP's "Nice Guy" is a guy who supports his wife but does not do all the other things that you listed above. What you described is a 'great guy'.


Oh I know what the OP was doing. I just think it was a little disingenuous. This whole "nice guy" conundrum gets tiring. I think before anyone else uses the term "nice guy", they need to put a disclaimer of their definition of it.

I think the idea the OP posted is also not looking at the whole picture. The OP is talking about a nice guy being a man who thinks he's a nice guy simply because he provides a stable home environment but provides nothing additional to the marriage. The problem with that definition is that it paints the man in 2D.

A man who is concerned enough about providing a good home and stable economic environment does so because he cares (or he's "NICE"). Well, that care (or niceness) isn't going to just grind to an abrupt halt in every other aspect of this man. He's going to care about how his wife looks at him, doing things for the family etc. He may not be "great" at everything, but he's not going to score 100's in the providing department and 0's in everything else. People are more complex than the OP is painting.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Dad&Hubby said:


> Oh I know what the OP was doing. I just think it was a little disingenuous. This whole "nice guy" conundrum gets tiring. I think before anyone else uses the term "nice guy", they need to put a disclaimer of their definition of it.
> 
> I think the idea the OP posted is also not looking at the whole picture. The OP is talking about a nice guy being a man who thinks he's a nice guy simply because he provides a stable home environment but provides nothing additional to the marriage. The problem with that definition is that it paints the man in 2D.
> 
> A man who is concerned enough about providing a good home and stable economic environment does so because he cares (or he's "NICE"). Well, that care (or niceness) isn't going to just grind to an abrupt halt in every other aspect of this man. He's going to care about how his wife looks at him, doing things for the family etc. He may not be "great" at everything, but he's not going to score 100's in the providing department and 0's in everything else. People are more complex than the OP is painting.


Funny thing is, myself as well as a few others tried explaining that his premise was flawed , 
But he refused to see it.


----------



## jorgegene

"I don't think you understand what the job market is like in the USA at this time. It can be very hard to find a job. There are millions here who have been looking for years now and cannot find anything. The job growth has been in part time minimum wage jobs." EleGirl

Ain't this the truth!

Yes, I think they made a mistake when they used the term 'nice guy' to demean men who are ACTUALLY nice without being doormats. I mean, think about it. Who does not want people to be nice to them. The term was unfortunately coined to understand a group of men who are nice on the surface, but had severe codependency issues and insecurity issues.

However, unfortunately the term stuck and is out there in popular culture used very commonly. Now it diminishes men who are actually nice, but also strong.

The point is, the term should never have been used. The author should have 'invented' a different term. What term? 

Don't ask me, I'm not an author


----------



## SimplyAmorous

EleGirl said:


> SA, no one is judging you so I don't understand your defensiveness. If you and your husband have planned well so that you and he are taken care of if something happens to him, then good for you guys. No one is saying that you, or any woman, has to have a career working outside the home.
> 
> What we are talking about is the reality that many women who have been SAHMs have had to deal with because their life took a wrong turn. These things are often out of a person's control.


I feel judged *as foolish* when I read some of these comments.. "*A woman should never never never depend on her husband financially*."

With each *NEVER* comes a little more SMACK to the face... 

I know they are just opinions...and it should roll off... really it's no different than when others feel stepped on for something else they have chosen in life..... *I am countering* ...wanting to point out that some of us who have chosen this path ...who very much enjoy this lifestyle....have put much planning...and sacrifice... into our futures so it wouldn't be a total destitute situation..

Sure it would be Hard.. I'd be lost without my husband.. but I don't think I'd be living in the gutter either..this is something I wanted to point out... I don't feel every situation is the same or would be the same.. 

I know of a full time job a friend could get me into right now if I wanted it.. I have a # of GF's who don't have high paying jobs and manage to take care of their bills, have a car, own a house or rent.. they do OK.. I could see me in those situations.. if the worst happened .. We do live in a lower cost area though.


----------



## PieceOfSky

SimplyAmorous said:


> I feel judged *as foolish* when I read some of these comments.. "*A woman should never never never depend on her husband financially*."
> 
> With each *NEVER* comes a little more SMACK to the face...
> 
> I know they are just opinions...and it should roll off... really it's no different than when others feel stepped on for something else they have chosen in life..... *I am countering* ...wanting to point out that some of us who have chosen this path ...who very much enjoy this lifestyle....have put much planning...and sacrifice... into our futures so it wouldn't be a total destitute situation..
> 
> Sure it would be Hard.. I'd be lost without my husband.. but I don't think I'd be living in the gutter either..this is something I wanted to point out... I don't feel every situation is the same or would be the same..
> 
> I know of a full time job a friend could get me into right now if I wanted it.. I have a # of GF's who don't have high paying jobs and manage to take care of their bills, have a car, own a house or rent.. they do OK.. I could see me in those situations.. if the worst happened .. We do live in a lower cost area though.







SA,



Let me say I envy (in a nice way ) the life and relationship you and your husband have built together. Obviously, you have done a great job and are a good team.



If I ever advise my daughters to avoid depending on a partner's income, it would have nothing to do with a lowered view of the sort of thing you and your H have. It would just be me wanting them to never end up in a situation where they couldn't leave if they wanted to --or at least thought they couldn't. It would stem mostly from me having no idea whether my daughter's partner were like your H or instead like many despicable partners we read about on TAM.



Freedom to leave doesn't just mean the ability to earn a wage. Being debt free and emotionally healthy are important too.



I'd also emphasize the need for life insurance to my kids.


----------



## Trickster

SimplyAmorous said:


> Here we go again... What if a family is debt free.. (I am meaning house, land, credit cards, cars, everything.. we own 50 acres (our house & land is worth a pretty penny so I would say our net worth is UP THERE).... we have enough saved in cash that I could live off of it for 2 + years if he was disabled, or dies -not counting life insurance...or what we have in our 401K I could take out)...
> 
> My biggest immediate concern would be Health insurance, I would be VERY STRESSED OUT over this... Me and my H was stricklers about not being in debt, when we got our house loan, (we cut it in half paying it off in 7 yrs).... we have never taken out a loan for anything in our marriage of 25 yrs..
> 
> I am not one who lives a lavish lifestyle.. was never used to it .. so I don't need to to maintain something that another family is used to -if that makes any sense, we don't even carry cell phones but 1 old tracfone -for emergencies (cheapest way to go )...works for me...I'm happy!
> 
> Life would be hard.. I'd have to pick myself up and probably work 2 jobs.. I don't know... I guess you do what you have to do....when the unfortunate shows up at your door..
> 
> I might have to sell our house.. they have temp agencies around here so one always has a Job / maybe go to college, I am not sure really.. if he hangs on long enough, at his Union Job, there is money for the surviving wife..
> 
> I get so tired of feeling judged over this. I fully understand the risks though.. I am just willing to take them. And feel I do have something to fall back upon.. if anything... our home & property is a living dream, I could rent rooms here -in addition to working a lower paying job.. to make it ..
> 
> There are ways.. so long as I wasn't so damn poor I had to go live in public housing. .. now that would make me want to end it all.


Don't mean to judge you at all SA. I really love your optimism. You seem to have a back up plan.

We all have our life experience to form our belief system.

Our dad left us kids and we lived in a neighbors garage... So much for half of my dad's resources. 

When I was injured, we had a very good savings, it didn't last long as I hoped. We recovered and I got better, but we are still in debt. 

I have a 500,000 life insurance policy. That won't last all that long either. 

I am more concerned about being disabled than death.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Caribbean Man said:


> SA, I understand exactly where you're coming from, and that has been my point since my first post in this thread.
> 
> Marriage is an economic union.
> 
> The idea that a woman should never have to depend financially on a man in marriage, least she should get divorced , though it might sound nice, is not realistic in today's economic conditions. And I don't think it was ever a reality for the majority of women and men.
> 
> *Whether or not we realize it, the majority of society are working class people, meaning they live from paycheck to paycheck.*


 I fully realize this....really I do... I've seen it with people who make more $$ than us even.. we were never this couple.. we had thousands saved before we married, put half down on our 1st house 4 yrs into our marriage and nearly half down on our 2nd ...2 yrs later.... If H got paid ONCE A YEAR in some big lump sum, we'd be fine, that's just how we manage ...

In reality, if we were ever in a situation where it came to living paycheck to paycheck- my butt would be out in the work force.. I'd be cleaning it up and stashing it away.. I'd need that to sleep at night...I NEED to have a substantial stash put back -for each & every emergency...as they DO come. ..House repairs.. both our teen sons went to Disney with the band months ago... most parents didn't have the money -they had to sell all this junk for their 1 kid to go... we had 2 kids, I hate selling Junk...we just paid the $1450 for them to go.. it was there.. no biggie.

Thank you Piece of Sky for your thoughts.. I just really dislike how society has changed so much that now .. if a woman is not working , contributing financially at least 2/3 or something.. she just seems less valuable, less strong....whatever. I am *independent minded* anyway....Guess I can't boast on anything else! I am such a "kept" woman..but I don't feel that at all. 

I hold a candle for the Traditional marriage.. what can I say.. but ya know....I'd be the 1st pounding it into any woman's head how to be Oh so careful about the character of the MAN / men she attaches herself to..... and for men to be very very very careful on whom they marry also.....if she is going to be a SAH-Mom.. frivolous spenders (for one) will destroy that set up...real fast!

There IS GREAT RISK on both sides .. of course... and also sound financial planning ...OMG it's so important !! In our early marriage, I spend lots of time at the Library eating those books up..


----------



## ScrambledEggs

Dad&Hubby said:


> Oh I know what the OP was doing. I just think it was a little disingenuous.


I think for you to say this you must think I was making a much broader statement than I was. 



Dad&Hubby said:


> This whole "nice guy" conundrum gets tiring. I think before anyone else uses the term "nice guy", they need to put a disclaimer of their definition of it.


You mean like the disclaimer and description of my "nice guy" that I put in my OP?



Dad&Hubby said:


> I think the idea the OP posted is also not looking at the whole picture. The OP is talking about a nice guy being a man who thinks he's a nice guy simply because he provides a stable home environment but provides nothing additional to the marriage. The problem with that definition is that it paints the man in 2D.


Exactly. I made a conclusion about a narrowly and clearly defined behavior. Since then folks have wrongly attributed or implied all kinds of stuff to me from the full litany of feminist cannon including indictments of all nice guys and traditional marriage. 

All of this is straw man material. There is plenty of room to disagree with me and I am fine with but if that is to be case, disagree with what I actually said.

To be honest the level of cognitive inability to understand my compartmentalization of this behavior is well... astounding.



Dad&Hubby said:


> A man who is concerned enough about providing a good home and stable economic environment does so because he cares (or he's "NICE"). Well, that care (or niceness) isn't going to just grind to an abrupt halt in every other aspect of this man. He's going to care about how his wife looks at him, doing things for the family etc. He may not be "great" at everything, but he's not going to score 100's in the providing department and 0's in everything else. People are more complex than the OP is painting.


I see what you did here. You redefined "nice guy" in a way no one would disagree with, but then pointed out, correctly, that my conclusion does not apply to your nice guy. I agree with this. Can you see why I feel your conclusion then does not belong with my "nice guy"?


----------



## ScrambledEggs

Caribbean Man said:


> Funny thing is, myself as well as a few others tried explaining that his premise was flawed ,
> But he refused to see it.


Could you restate what you think my premise is?


----------



## Thundarr

jorgegene said:


> The term was unfortunately coined to understand a group of men who are nice on the surface, but had severe codependency issues and insecurity issues.
> 
> However, unfortunately the term stuck and is out there in popular culture used very commonly. Now it diminishes men who are actually nice, but also strong.
> 
> The point is, the term should never have been used. The author should have 'invented' a different term. What term?
> 
> Don't ask me, I'm not an author


It does kind of suck but that was the best name to reach his target audience; guys who genuinely think they are nice and are confused why the get shat on.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

> * Trickster said:* Don't mean to judge you at all SA. I really love your optimism. You seem to have a back up plan.
> 
> *We all have our life experience to form our belief system.
> 
> Our dad left us kids and we lived in a neighbors garage... So much for half of my dad's resources. *


 this is very true on many levels and I could point to what I have seen in my childhood -which disgusted ME on a deep level where I vowed to never walk that path..to avoid such pain in my own future.. I "get it".. and that must have been very very hard on you, your Mother, your siblings!

I grew up with hard working Parents, that didn't have college educated jobs, my Dad never borrowed from a soul.. never in debt.. I guess I have seen lower income people do just fine if they manage their money well.. I could teach a class on frugality.. 

But yeah.. life is getting more expensive every day... and I do HATE it.. the cost of food .. OIL.. costs us over $110 to fill our suburban up... 

I feel bad for our children trying to make it this rat race, it won't come as easy as it did for US.. I feel we have given them the education/ the reality...to be very careful to not waste money so they have something to show for their efforts...to count the cost in everything...to not live on credit...which has become commonplace ...it all catches up in the end.. 



> I am more concerned about being disabled than death.


 A big fear of mine too.. but I don't want to lay around worrying my life away.. I used to worry more when I was younger... about this or that.. I've gotten better to not allow it to cloud my mind, stealing from my current JOY.... just do all we can to stay healthy, plan well.. save well.. and live our lives ! Thank you Trickster!


----------



## nice777guy

SimplyAmorous said:


> I feel judged *as foolish* when I read some of these comments.. "*A woman should never never never depend on her husband financially*."
> 
> With each *NEVER* comes a little more SMACK to the face...
> 
> I know they are just opinions...and it should roll off... really it's no different than when others feel stepped on for something else they have chosen in life..... *I am countering* ...wanting to point out that some of us who have chosen this path ...who very much enjoy this lifestyle....have put much planning...and sacrifice... into our futures so it wouldn't be a total destitute situation..
> 
> Sure it would be Hard.. I'd be lost without my husband.. but I don't think I'd be living in the gutter either..this is something I wanted to point out... I don't feel every situation is the same or would be the same..
> 
> I know of a full time job a friend could get me into right now if I wanted it.. I have a # of GF's who don't have high paying jobs and manage to take care of their bills, have a car, own a house or rent.. they do OK.. I could see me in those situations.. if the worst happened .. We do live in a lower cost area though.


How long have you been HAPPILY married now?!?

Not sure why you would ever feel foolish if what you are doing works for YOU!


----------



## PieceOfSky

sorry if this is off topic, but Trickster, I hope you have private disability insurance, that pays a significant portion of your current income should you become disabled in a way that prevents you from doing your current type of work.


----------



## Trickster

SA

Since you like posting music, this is a song you may appreciate... This is what I strive for with my daughter. 

Its my job to to make sure she has everything in the work I can possibly give to her to get her started in life at all costs... That's my job.


Conway Twitty 'That's My Job' Video


----------



## Happyfamily

ScrambledEggs said:


> It is just a word for independent economic security.


Fallacy of definition is your trademark. And while using your own definitions that are the entire basis for your argument, telling me the definitions are unimportant to the argument. 

This tells me why you have problems interacting with women, or other people for that matter. This isn't nice.


----------



## coffee4me

This article touches on many of the points brought up in this thread.

Modern-Marriage Report: Not as Necessary Yet Still Desired - TIME



> "*But very few couples have had a chance to learn really what are the new rules of love and intimacy — not because the rules are so difficult to learn, just because no one told them.* To interpret that as meaning there's something broken about the institution of marriage itself would be a horrible, horrible mistake."


I was hoping the article gave a clue as to some of these new rules are but no such luck.  Makes it difficult to prep the next generation in the ever changing landscape that is marriage today. I think my best advice so far to my kids is: always be true to yourself and buckle up- life's full of surprises keep a good attitude and an open mind.


----------



## Happyfamily

EleGirl said:


> If your current marriage were to end for whatever reason,


Whatever reason? Give me the reasons. I don't work with fiction. I work with reality. If he is hit by a bus I'll have to vacation on Maui for a few years and think about it. We have two types of insurance - one from his previous work and one I bought myself. 

If it is a divorce tomorrow, I'll vacation maybe a couple years or so. We've been saving, and I am young enough to start a whole new life. 

I am the one who said this, before you did:



> To become employable, the person would need to go back to school and refresh their academics with the best outcome being to get an MS. When and if they could get a job after that, it would be at entry level. So their pay would reflect that as well.


Whether I get divorced or stay married, or marry someone else, I will probably go back and get my PhD. I will have scholarships and fellowships because I stormed through a double major, honors, graduating with high distinction. 

At the same time, I am open to marrying someone who is a fit husband. Run a business together. There are lots of options.

It's always been interesting to me how some people paint me as a victim, or that I have not thought through the future. Like above, oooooh... shudder the thought of starting salary $70K or so with my undergraduate degree. With a PhD I'll have to go on food stamps maybe to get by the first few years. 

I've also lived poor. Same thing there. When people were saying such pejorative things about those who did, I would be thinking WTF are they talking about? 3.5 billion people are living on less than $2 a day. I disagree that even if I had only a high school education that I would be facing something terrible. I didn't have envy over people that had more than me then, and I won't have it if I choose to live under a bridge tomorrow. I actually thought about doing that before I had kids, just to see what it was like. 



So tell me - what made you think that I hadn't thought any of this through? What made you think that you had the ability to instill any kind of fear in me?


----------



## Trickster

PieceOfSky said:


> sorry if this is off topic, but Trickster, I hope you have private disability insurance, that pays a significant portion of your current income should you become disabled in a way that prevents you from doing your current type of work.


I can't get that being being self employed. I could if I worked for a company as an employee. I would have to hire several employees and be an employee of my own business and give myself a normal paycheck with taxes taken out each paycheck... Something like that...

I make way more being independent than I would as an employee.


----------



## greenfern

Happyfamily said:


> Whatever reason? Give me the reasons. I don't work with fiction. I work with reality. If he is hit by a bus I'll have to vacation on Maui for a few years and think about it. We have two types of insurance - one from his previous work and one I bought myself.
> 
> If it is a divorce tomorrow, I'll vacation maybe a couple years or so. We've been saving, and I am young enough to start a whole new life.
> 
> I am the one who said this, before you did:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether I get divorced or stay married, or marry someone else, I will probably go back and get my PhD. I will have scholarships and fellowships because I stormed through a double major, honors, graduating with high distinction.
> 
> At the same time, I am open to marrying someone who is a fit husband. Run a business together. There are lots of options.
> 
> It's always been interesting to me how some people paint me as a victim, or that I have not thought through the future. Like above, oooooh... shudder the thought of starting salary $70K or so with my undergraduate degree. With a PhD I'll have to go on food stamps maybe to get by the first few years.
> 
> I've also lived poor. Same thing there. When people were saying such pejorative things about those who did, I would be thinking WTF are they talking about? 3.5 billion people are living on less than $2 a day. I disagree that even if I had only a high school education that I would be facing something terrible. I didn't have envy over people that had more than me then, and I won't have it if I choose to live under a bridge tomorrow. I actually thought about doing that before I had kids, just to see what it was like.
> 
> 
> 
> So tell me - what made you think that I hadn't thought any of this through? What made you think that you had the ability to instill any kind of fear in me?


I'm glad you are so confident in your abilities & have such a great foundation for a future career if you so choose to have one, but some women start their families before they get an undergraduate. And some women won't have the luxury of taking 4 years to get a phd at age 45 when their husband leaves them for a younger woman. It happens and its more common than what (you believe) your situation is.

In any case the comments were not directed at you (one very specific case of a SAHM) but of the general case of women or men who lose 20 years of on the job career development. And is pretty unrelated to the original post, sorry!


----------



## greenfern

Also, I have no idea how old you are. If you are in your early 30s obviously you still have quite a bit of time. After age 40 the options start to decrease, you may not be accepted for a phd program. 

I would also say the marketability of being a 'good wife' also decreases over time since men seem to want younger women and don't really care as much if you can manage the home, cook, etc. You may find the husband options declining at the same time the job market is.


----------



## jorgegene

" 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." OP SrambledEggs

I'm thinking about this, and honestly, I'm not sure I ever met someone like this. Perhaps though if you dig deeper, they actually do think this way, whoever 'they' are.


----------



## Happyfamily

jorgegene said:


> Yes, I think they made a mistake when they used the term 'nice guy' to demean men who are ACTUALLY nice without being doormats. I mean, think about it. Who does not want people to be nice to them. The term was unfortunately coined to understand a group of men who are nice on the surface, but had severe codependency issues and insecurity issues.


Oh, there was no mistake about this. Quite the opposite. If you look into the history of this term, it was coined in the era when baseball was King, and the quote is attributed to Leo "The Lip" Derucher after a famous article on him, eventually becoming an artice he wrote, and even books later:

Nice Guys Finish Last

(Alternatively Nice Guys Don't Win Pennants). 

The context of the article that made it so famous was journalists asking "The Lip" why he didn't try being a "nice guy" for a change. His response was to say that he was not a nice guy at all and he was in first place.

An article came out immediately afterwards in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (1948) that pointed out how more gentlemanly managers had actually won more pennants.

Since then, the application of this myth has been more or less promoted by the same kinds of people: It was a loud-mouthed, impolite man who was excusing his behavior with a fallacy: pretending that it is bad manners that wins baseball pennants.

Likewise, as PUA culture began to take hold in this country, the same myth was promoted by them and most notably in what they call "neg theory": being rude to women with put-downs was supposedly a tactic for attracting them.

Neither application is true, but the catchy, pithy appearance and the irony/paradoxical nature makes for enormous success in pop culture regardless of whether it is true. 

Personally, this is an important signal to me about a person's intelligence and character. When someone uses it, as Leo the Lip did - he's a jerk. The nice people, and ones who are not fooled by argumentum ad populum (the fact something is popular does not make it true) - those I note as decent and intelligent people.


----------



## Caribbean Man

ScrambledEggs said:


> Could you restate what you think my premise is?


But I have stated it several times in the thread, and pointed out the mistake, along with a few others and your last response was that you weren't interested in any further conversation with me.

But I'm sure if you reread the entire thread , you will get what most, including myself, are saying.

Human beings and marriage, both traditional and modern ones, are way more complex than what you are making it out to be.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

nice777guy said:


> How long have you been HAPPILY married now?!?
> 
> Not sure why you would ever feel foolish if what you are doing works for YOU!


Every person on this forum has "triggers"...I guess mine is related to -knocking the Traditional Husband working (Protector / Provider)/ wife staying Home (nurturer-handles the home front), making fun of stetford wives & all that (Never seen that show so I don't understand what all the mocking is REALLY about).... I don't feel demeaned in my role ..

So I have "Stay at Home Mom" triggers.. I WANTED this lifestyle dang it... 

Went out to eat with H, kids...I mentioned this thread...ya know.. he said he can understand why everyone feels as you all do.. because of how rampant Divorce is today, he says nobody stays married anymore!!... women DO need to protect themselves.. yet he knows me well enough to know I could manage -when push comes to shove...

I just like to counter & say "Hey wait a minute".. that's all.. 

I have always felt happily married to this man.. I didn't need a richer lifestyle either, just so thankful that we could swing this lifestyle.. ..he hated it when I worked, I wasn't home enough... it was ME who said ..."but we need to save more!".. looking back, I am happy we did... But now I relax. .. we enjoy.... 

All of our issues, small as they are (or were) have been sex related.. my favorite subject! 

OK I'll put a lid on it and stop thinking the traditional lifestyle is being put down on this thread..


----------



## Happyfamily

greenfern said:


> I'm glad you are so confident in your abilities & have such a great foundation for a future career if you so choose to have one,* but some women start their families before they get an undergraduate.[b/] And some women won't have the luxury of taking 4 years to get a phd at age 45 when their husband leaves them for a younger woman. It happens and its more common than what (you believe) your situation is.
> 
> In any case the comments were not directed at you (one very specific case of a SAHM) but of the general case of women or men who lose 20 years of on the job career development. And is pretty unrelated to the original post, sorry!*


*

You just did direct more patronizing remarks directly at me, in bold above. You are forgiven though. I've had it all my life and expect it out of people. 

But golly, during my Social Anthropology major we actually did study entire cultures that married women at puberty, arranged marriages, practiced polygamy, widespread incest, stoning women for bad comportment, etc. I have a pretty decent command of the experience of women historically and cross-culturally. It is this very reason I bristle at myth-peddling.

I noticed you left off congratulating me for spending two years in poverty and wondering why people like you make such a big deal out of it. I noticed you ignored the fact 3.5 billion people live on less than two dollars a day.

The reason why you left them out is because the women-as-victims framing is important to you. 

It's something I learn right away about people. There are people who relentlessly pose women as victims, or weak and dependent. You are doing that right now, scrambling to try looking for a story that you can arrange that makes me or other women look helpless and frail.

Whose fault is it that someone has spent twenty years with a working man and hasn't saved up money for a life event? Whose fault is it that she can't trim down to less body fat than a twenty year old? Obesity is rampant in the USA - it's about the easiest place on earth to be in the top 10% of fitness. 

These are mistakes in choices of the individual, not being a woman per se.*


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Trickster said:


> SA
> 
> Since you like posting music, this is a song you may appreciate... This is what I strive for with my daughter.
> 
> Its my job to to make sure she has everything in the work I can possibly give to her to get her started in life at all costs... That's my job.
> 
> 
> Conway Twitty 'That's My Job' Video


Thank you ...I just listened to that and started balling .. oh that is normal for me.... music just has a way...it's a good ball..... that is my Husband's heart too.. our 1st 3 sons look up to their dad so very much.. so far we haven't had any teenage rebellion (kinda hinted to in that song)... sometimes I think our family is terribly unrelateable...



Trickster said:


> I can't get that being being self employed. I could if I worked for a company as an employee. I would have to hire several employees and be an employee of my own business and give myself a normal paycheck with taxes taken out each paycheck... Something like that...
> 
> I make way more being independent than I would as an employee.


See ...there is a *risk* in every darn situation.. you have chosen to work as your own Boss..they have a much harder time getting health insurance and/or the cost just about kills you..(where as someone like my H only has to pay $200 a month for our whole family to be covered).... and as you spoke here.. getting disability insurance..but you have chosen the risk to forgo that.. we all risk something in our lives for something else we want MORE so.. 

Everyone we know who is self employed...it just doesn't seem like they get ahead...they seem to pay more for everything.... they work non stop....we've always felt it is so much easier to work under someone...but ya know..the world needs both types -right!


----------



## greenfern

Happyfamily said:


> You just did direct more patronizing remarks directly at me, in bold above. You are forgiven though. I've had it all my life and expect it out of people.


All I meant by that is you feel confident in your position right now, and by that I mean your marriage, your marketability as a wife, and your marketability as an engineer (or anthropologist?). I personally would not feel as confident about my financial future (given a possibility of divorce) in your situation, nor would any of my friends.


Happyfamily said:


> But golly, during my Social Anthropology major we actually did study entire cultures that married women at puberty, arranged marriages, practiced polygamy, widespread incest, stoning women for bad comportment, etc. I have a pretty decent command of the experience of women historically and cross-culturally. It is this very reason I bristle at myth-peddling.


Sorry you have lost me here. Not seeing the relevance for current western civilization, which is what we are discussing.



Happyfamily said:


> I noticed you left off congratulating me for spending two years in poverty and wondering why people like you make such a big deal out of it. I noticed you ignored the fact 3.5 billion people live on less than two dollars a day.


Again - western civilization. How many people in the US (I assume you live in the US?) live off $2 a day. I'm not sure why a congratulations is in order. All I'm saying is that when a couple establishes a standard of living and one of them works in a paying job and the other doesnt', the non-working partner is disadvantaged for their future if the marriage ends.





Happyfamily said:


> The reason why you left them out is because the women-as-victims framing is important to you.
> 
> It's something I learn right away about people. There are people who relentlessly pose women as victims, or weak and dependent. You are doing that right now, scrambling to try looking for a story that you can arrange that makes me or other women look helpless and frail.


Not my point at all. In my situation actually my XH was the SAHD. I saw his future earning potential declining the longer he stayed at home. What I said was that any SAHP is disadvantage if the marriage ends.


Happyfamily said:


> Whose fault is it that someone has spent twenty years with a working man and hasn't saved up money for a life event? Whose fault is it that she can't trim down to less body fat than a twenty year old? Obesity is rampant in the USA - it's about the easiest place on earth to be in the top 10% of fitness.
> 
> These are mistakes in choices of the _individual_, not being a woman per se.


Again its not gender based, its just that typically the woman is the SAHP. I have no idea how this is related to obesity which affects men and women.


----------



## jld

SimplyAmorous said:


> I hold a candle for the Traditional marriage.. what can I say.. but ya know....I'd be the 1st pounding it into any woman's head how to be Oh *so careful about the character of the MAN / men she attaches herself to..... and for men to be very very very careful on whom they marry also*.....if she is going to be a SAH-Mom.. frivolous spenders (for one) will destroy that set up...real fast!


:iagree:

Who we decide to marry is so important, and most of us do it at a relatively young age. No wonder parents used to not trust young people to do it on their own.

I was not expecting to be a SAHM. I just met dh and he knew that is what he wanted and was willing to pay for it. I am sure neither of our families were impressed. What a waste of a college education, I am sure they thought.

It is a risk to be a SAHM. I don't know what kind of job I could get now. I would surely have to go back to school and get another degree. And if something happened to dh, I would. I could not just sit home, pining for him.

Kind of off-topic, but I am amazed by SAHMs who do not do their utmost for their husbands. To me, I just have to please him. He provides all the money. I have made too big an investment in my marriage to let it fail. Way too risky.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

Happyfamily said:


> Fallacy of definition is your trademark. And while using your own definitions that are the entire basis for your argument, telling me the definitions are unimportant to the argument.
> 
> This tells me why you have problems interacting with women, or other people for that matter. This isn't nice.


Personal attacks now eh?

Thank you for assigning me my thoughts and now a trademark. I am sure that it is in great contrast to the antisocial behavior you have proscribed to me and that it wins you many friends.

You know very well I did not say definitions where unimportant.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

Dear god what I have I done. Someone please lock this thread and put us out of our misery.....


----------



## SimplyAmorous

ScrambledEggs said:


> Dear god what I have I done. Someone please lock this thread and put us out of our misery.....


Awe don't sweat it ..this always happens on TAM....Isn't it fun!?

Let's face it...anytime you get a bunch of people from all different backgrounds, beliefs, experiences, lifestyles...whether it be sexually, economically, politically , religiously... and throw them all together....it's gonna get a little heated....just hold on for the ride !


----------



## jld

Like SA said, don't sweat it, SE. I am learning from the discussion. Isn't that what we are here for?


----------



## jld

I just read your opening post again, and I don't think you said anything terrible. Times _are_ harder for men than they used to be. And I think women are pushed to expect more, too, even if they could be happier with less.


----------



## Trickster

jld said:


> It is a risk to be a SAHM. I don't know what kind of job I could get now. I would surely have to go back to school and get another degree. And if something happened to dh, I would. I could not just sit home, pining for him.
> 
> Kind of off-topic, but I am amazed by SAHMs who do not do their utmost for their husbands. To me, I just have to please him. He provides all the money. I have made too big an investment in my marriage to let it fail. Way too risky.


I wish my wife thought this way. 

Without a doubt, I worked hard to be a good provider without much in return. Most nights, I would come home to laundry in the dryer and I still made dinner. Even now she is 47 and doesn't want to cook dinner. She always says that I am better at it...

Maybe I fit that "nice guy" in the op... I did so many things to try to earn the love I craved from her and never got it. With women before her, I never had to do that. I never even had to take them out to dinner. I would just call them to go out and they just wanted to come over. Sex was easier when I wasn't trying...Now that I am not nice anymore, my wife is all loving. What took me so dam long? I don't get it...


My wife has no options other than me and that makes me sad. Even with 4 years of college. I know she doesn't love me but she is the mother of my daughter.

The nice guy in me wants to stay the course. The smart man in me knows the best solution is to leave and take my daughter with me. Let the courts decide what happens. I hate the nice guy in me at this point.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

Trickster, the best thing you can do is set limits and stick to them. There have to be consequences, or there will be no change. 

From what I've read, you already have some experience with this. You have seen some success. That must give you self-confidence.

I have a healthy fear of my husband, lol. He has given me a very good life, and I really do not want to lose it. 

I don't think other women have this fear. And there are probably benefits to that, too.


----------



## 2ntnuf

ScrambledEggs said:


> Dear god what I have I done. Someone please lock this thread and put us out of our misery.....


You can copy it into a word document and then delete it. The force is with you, young jedi.


----------



## alphaomega

Wolf1974 said:


> 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


Dude....

Every time you post I have to repaint my mental image of you...lol

Once you were a bad ass Harley driving mother fu(Ker. 

Then you were the big ass weightlifting mother fu(Ker wearing thick black rimmed glasses but doing the academic circle spreading seeds of insight and wisdom.

And after you were the kind, gentle big ass weightlifting mother fu(Ker, wearing Tibetan monk robes, lifting baby birds back into their nests and educating small children about being one with themselves.

Now its the big assed weightlifting mother ****er driving down the street in your Harley, wearing your monk robes and your thick, black glasses, travelling to your next academic conference where you'll give a seminar about "quantum physics and your inner peace". 

..always enjoy your posts....keep it up!


----------



## Holland

Happyfamily said:


> You just did direct more patronizing remarks directly at me, in bold above. You are forgiven though. I've had it all my life and expect it out of people.
> 
> But golly, during my Social Anthropology major we actually did study entire cultures that married women at puberty, arranged marriages, practiced polygamy, widespread incest, stoning women for bad comportment, etc. *I have a pretty decent command of the experience of women historically and cross-culturally. It is this very reason I bristle at myth-peddling.*
> 
> I noticed you left off congratulating me for spending two years in poverty and wondering why people like you make such a big deal out of it. I noticed you ignored the fact 3.5 billion people live on less than two dollars a day.
> 
> The reason why you left them out is because the women-as-victims framing is important to you.
> 
> It's something I learn right away about people. There are people who relentlessly pose women as victims, or weak and dependent. You are doing that right now, scrambling to try looking for a story that you can arrange that makes me or other women look helpless and frail.
> 
> Whose fault is it that someone has spent twenty years with a working man and hasn't saved up money for a life event? Whose fault is it that she can't trim down to less body fat than a twenty year old? Obesity is rampant in the USA - it's about the easiest place on earth to be in the top 10% of fitness.
> 
> These are mistakes in choices of the _individual_, not being a woman per se.


How much real life experience do you have. not text book but real life? Post divorce, 40 years old, a couple of kids, been out of the work force for 2 decades, kids school hours to work around, shared custody arrangements to work around.

You may be well educated but your grasp of the reality of many people's real life struggles is limited.


----------



## Trickster

The benefit of my wife being a SAHM has helped me to earn more money and be more successful in my work. Many days, I work odd hours. I may be home for an early dinner and go back to work. I work most Saturdays, some Sundays, and most Holidays like Memorial Day. Labor Day, Spring break, Christmas break... If my wife had a full time career with demands of her own, I would of had to adjust my schedule many years ago to accommodate that. I may have decided to work for a company instead of being self employed. I will say that has helped for me.

I see the challenge my wife has with work. She has to be home around 3pm for our daughter and she needs to be off for teacher work days.

Summer is a whole different ball game. If my wife worked over the Summer, we would spend more money on camps than what my wife would earn.

IMO, there is just a fraction of families who can life a wonderful life on one income. They are the fortunate ones.

The SAHM's who maintain the home and finances, while the husband works is rare. We did it for 10 years. My wife is far from frugal. We don't have an income problem, we have a spending problem. The SAHM should adjust spending. She never did. 

Some of the SAHM'S on TAM seem amazing and strong. It's great it's working out.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Dad&Hubby

ScrambledEggs said:


> I see what you did here. You redefined "nice guy" in a way no one would disagree with, but then pointed out, correctly, that my conclusion does not apply to your nice guy. I agree with this. Can you see why I feel your conclusion then does not belong with my "nice guy"?


No, I didn't redefine, I expanded on....because your definition of the nice guy is way to narrow to actually exist. You're painting a person as them having 2 personality traits and thoughts. People are more complex than that. All I did was try and explain that.

A man isn't going to have 1 or 2 components of care and then have every other aspect of how they behave in a relationship drop off a cliff into non-existence.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

2ntnuf said:


> You can copy it into a word document and then delete it. The force is with you, young jedi.


A lot of people put effort into this thread so deleting would not be reasonable. I think I would only ever go there for a privacy concern.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

Dad&Hubby said:


> No, I didn't redefine, I expanded on....because your definition of the nice guy is way to narrow to actually exist. You're painting a person as them having 2 personality traits and thoughts. People are more complex than that. All I did was try and explain that.
> 
> A man isn't going to have 1 or 2 components of care and then have every other aspect of how they behave in a relationship drop off a cliff into non-existence.


The 2nd paragraph above is absolutely true and you are correct that it can be a fallacy to too narrowly ( or too broadly) define something for purpose of your argument. All individuals are complex and it would be too narrow to define them as I have. That said, the subject of my post was not the "nice guy", despite my title, but the specific behavior that I put forward as problematic. And behaviors can be appropriately defined in a narrow fashion. My disclaimers alone in the post outght to make clear that I acknowledge a plurality of 'nice guys' that don't fit this behavior.


----------



## jorgegene

Is there a 'nice guy' online test to make sure we're not nice guys?


----------



## ocotillo

jorgegene said:


> Is there a 'nice guy' online test to make sure we're not nice guys?


Every normal, well adjusted person has at least the potential for this behavior. 

Elbert Hubbard observed: “_In order to have friends, you must first be one_” which most of us recognize as true to a certain extent. 

On the flip side of the coin, Lucius Seneca said: “_He who begins to be your friend because it pays will also cease because it pays._” 

Most of us probably recognize the truth in this too. So the two axioms, when taken together beg the question, "Are human relations dependent upon what we do for others or not?"

I'd say that human relations are a tightrope and the key is balance. We don't want to become "People Pleasers" who consistently put the needs of others ahead of our own and end up becoming resentful as a result.

By the same token, we don't want to become "Entitled Takers" who reject the entire concept of mutuality and believe that simply allowing the other person to bask in the light of our presence is a reward unto itself.

A healthy relationship is a union of two persons with roughly equal levels of concern for each other.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

> *Jld said*: Kind of off-topic, but I am amazed by SAHMs who do not do their utmost for their husbands. To me, I just have to please him. He provides all the money. I have made too big an investment in my marriage to let it fail. Way too risky.


 I'm with you jld !... wanted to say something about this .. I know for me, there is a deep gratitude & respect for all my husband does for our family.. *and he never complains*.. but turns around and tells me it would all fall apart without me... In the winter sometimes he has to get up at 4:30 am just to plow the driveway to get out of it -just to get to work... then work outside in freezing temps, deal with co-workers who try to sleep on the job...he has alot on his shoulders..but he's always looking out for his family.. that's just what he is made of... 

On his 50th birthday, I had our kids write messages on balloons for him.. they were all original -he laughed & was so touched...3rd son mentioned how hard he works.. this was his balloon...










And yet he thinks of me.. one day he worked a double (16 hrs straight)...this was during my insatiable sex drive phase... I sure as heck wasn't going to bother him THAT night , he needed his SLEEP!!!.... his alarm was going to go off in 6 hrs to get up for work again....and ya know what.....he came on to ME....he wanted to make love...I think I cried !! stuff like that..... how could I not want to give back the world to him.. 



> *Trickster said:* IMO, there is just a fraction of families who can life a wonderful life on one income. They are the fortunate ones.
> 
> *The SAHM's who maintain the home and finances, while the husband works is rare. We did it for 10 years. My wife is far from frugal. We don't have an income problem, we have a spending problem. The SAHM should adjust spending. She never did. *
> 
> Some of the SAHM'S on TAM seem amazing and strong. It's great it's working out.


 My husband allows me to manage every dime...I plan every Vacation, handle all the fine details and scheduling of our larger family... and it runs very smoothly.. he hasn't written a check or paid a bill -probably since the beginning of our marriage.. he tells people "My wife can squeeze a dime out of a nickel"....he knows I am even a little cheaper than him.. I put the reins on the kids spending... he likes to tell the story of us at the Grocery store, I handed the cashier a wad of coupons, ends up her register had a minus -like she owed me money....the look on her face...she didn't know what to do! I've only pulled that off once, but it was pretty cool!



> *Originally Posted by jorgegene *
> Is there a 'nice guy' online test to make sure we're not nice guys?


 Yes.. go here >>  No More Mr. Nice Guy Self-Assessment



> *ocotillo said: *A healthy relationship is a union of two persons with roughly equal levels of concern for each other.


 So true..


----------



## ocotillo

SimplyAmorous said:


> Yes.. go here >>  No More Mr. Nice Guy Self-Assessment


I scored *39 *- You have some Nice Guy tendencies


----------



## SimplyAmorous

ocotillo said:


> I scored *39 *- You have some Nice Guy tendencies


I'm always going on how "Tipped Beta" my Husband is on this forum (just cause he is such a family man, not aggressive, the good Beta) - which I have identified with "good-ness" -which many would then call NICE....(though he has enough Alpha I don't seem to give him credit for)...all depends on how one views these terms and their meanings I guess...

When he took that same test 3 yrs ago now.. his score was a 30 something also ...smack in the middle like yours... which is pretty typical for the vast majority of men..


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

ocotillo said:


> I scored *39 *- You have some Nice Guy tendencies


I scored *35* -have some nice guy tendencies.

The test is clearly flawed!!! 

jk... I know I have some nice guy traits, they're what spurred me to read the book.


----------



## Thundarr

It was a bunch of ones and a few fours. Not much in between. 33.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

SimplyAmorous said:


> Yes.. go here >>  No More Mr. Nice Guy Self-Assessment
> 
> So true..


45, still just "tendencies" but higher than I'd like to admit.


----------



## Caribbean Man

ocotillo said:


> *A healthy relationship is a union of two persons with roughly equal levels of concern for each other.*


Exactly^^^!

That's what makes a couple compatible.

So the question is not so much whether he is a " good man" but whether he is a good man_ to you_ and _for you._.

I also agree that much of this " nice guy" thing lies along a scale and we all possess these qualities in varying strengths and weaknesses. 
The key is to avoid both extremes of the scale, and like everything else, strive for a healthy balance in oneself and your personal relationships.


----------



## Caribbean Man

SimplyAmorous said:


> Yes.. go here >>  No More Mr. Nice Guy Self-Assessment


I scored 41.
Interestingly , I responded with option 1 [ Never] to most of the questions.
I think the conclusion/ analysis of the scores should have been more in depth.


----------



## Happyfamily

greenfern said:


> Sorry you have lost me here. Not seeing the relevance for current western civilization, which is what we are discussing.


No, you are discussing your own view of what you think to be recent history of your own country, which is in error on a number of important points.

Even within your own country you seem ignorant of major differences like plural marriage, let alone the rich diversity of women's experiences within the "standard" archetypes. 

The most important fallacy by insinuation is that rich people are happy and poor people are miserable. I know you will claim not to be doing that, but it is clear that you are. I am supposed to fear this misery. 



> Again - western civilization. How many people in the US (I assume you live in the US?) live off $2 a day.


Since fear-mongering about income is your central tenet, it is absolutely relevant. 

See how you can't bring yourself to acknowledge living in poverty was no big deal to me? Because_ fear is everything _in your argument. If it is no big deal, you have no argument. 





> All I'm saying is that when a couple establishes a standard of living and one of them works in a paying job and the other doesnt', the non-working partner is disadvantaged for their future if the marriage ends.


Don't minimize what you are doing. It comes down to money vs. happiness. Here is an article in Forbes on that score, and there are many similar:

Money Won't Buy You Happiness - Forbes



> There is a very small correlation between wealth and happiness–accounting for about 1% of the happiness reported by people answering surveys



You take the item constituting 1% of happiness and base your whole argument upon it, to the exclusion of the other 99%. 

So no, I don't accept this is "all I am doing". If you start with a false premise about history, restrict our attention to some tiny fraction of the population, upon some insignificant point, and then tell me this is driving gender relations - I object.


----------



## Created2Write

I know that, socially, "Nice guy" has a specific meaning and is attributed to a handful of specific qualities, but I dislike the label. If I were to describe my husband, one of the words I would use is "nice", because he really is. I hate that a _good_ thing, niceness, is labeled as something negative. And that the opposite of a Nice Guy so often turns out to be a jerk, is considered acceptable and normal.


----------



## Happyfamily

Created2Write said:


> I know that, socially, "Nice guy" has a specific meaning and is attributed to a handful of specific qualities, but I dislike the label. If I were to describe my husband, one of the words I would use is "nice", because he really is. I hate that a _good_ thing, niceness, is labeled as something negative. And that the opposite of a Nice Guy so often turns out to be a jerk, is considered acceptable and normal.


This is what cults do: invent jargon or "code" words that are either new or that commandeer existing words in order to give cult members a false sense of elite status, superior to normal people in their understanding and insight. It is an important tactic in mind control. 

So when the pick-up artist crowd commandeered "nice guy" as code for "doormat", that's what they were doing. 

There is no superior insight. No new understanding. It was just creating a label that was code/jargon for something anyone with common sense already knew. 

The cult, in this case Pickup Artist groupies, does not even want nice guys (traditional sense) to exist in their belief system. So it has been defined out of existence. That is how cult members practice mind control - through code words and jargon that actually close your mind at the same time it pretends to open up new insight. 

If you have ever tried to have a conversation with a Scientologist, it is pretty baffling because of all the jargon. To learn all the jargon is how they rope you into their belief system.

That's why this is more than just an annoyance to me: it is the commandeering of words in order to get me to embrace a belief system.


----------



## ocotillo

Happyfamily said:


> If you have ever tried to have a conversation with a Scientologist, it is pretty baffling because of all the jargon. To learn all the jargon is how they rope you into their belief system.


I can attest to that personally. Ditto for the Unification Church, Potter's House, Jehovah's Witnesses, Bible Students, etc.

I do think we're approaching the status of colloquialism with the term, "Nice Guy" though.


----------



## Thundarr

Happyfamily said:


> This is what cults do: invent jargon or "code" words that are either new or that commandeer existing words in order to give cult members a false sense of elite status, superior to normal people in their understanding and insight. It is an important tactic in mind control.
> 
> So when the pick-up artist crowd commandeered "nice guy" as code for "doormat", that's what they were doing.
> 
> There is no superior insight. No new understanding. It was just creating a label that was code/jargon for something anyone with common sense already knew.


I think the originator of the term just wanted to get his book to more eyes so he coined an ironic name. Basic premise is that many guys who think they're nice need to think twice about their motives and actions for doing seemingly nice things. He likely would not want anything to do with PUA. I didn't read nmmng until seeing referenced so often at TAM. But it seemed to me this guy was looking to help people in general.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

Happyfamily said:


> This is what cults do: invent jargon or "code" words that are either new or that commandeer existing words in order to give cult members a false sense of elite status, superior to normal people in their understanding and insight. It is an important tactic in mind control.
> 
> So when the pick-up artist crowd commandeered "nice guy" as code for "doormat", that's what they were doing.
> 
> There is no superior insight. No new understanding. It was just creating a label that was code/jargon for something anyone with common sense already knew.
> 
> The cult, in this case Pickup Artist groupies, does not even want nice guys (traditional sense) to exist in their belief system. So it has been defined out of existence. That is how cult members practice mind control - through code words and jargon that actually close your mind at the same time it pretends to open up new insight.
> 
> If you have ever tried to have a conversation with a Scientologist, it is pretty baffling because of all the jargon. To learn all the jargon is how they rope you into their belief system.
> 
> That's why this is more than just an annoyance to me: it is the commandeering of words in order to get me to embrace a belief system.



Culture, politics, morality ect are not static but are constantly evolving and it happens through a dialectal tension between political and cultural groups and the battle ground is usually in the language. There is no such thing as an absolute permanent meaning for a word as language is also evolving.. In other words everybody fights over the meaning of words as they fight for what they value, but that does not make the Republican party, the Catholic church, or Green Peace cults.

What makes a cult a cult is the lack of tolerance for others ideas, including others definition of words, as well a typical singular focus on a personality as the fount of purity/knowledge/holiness, whatever. However misguided they are, PUA is not a cult and to call them so diminishes the tragedies and extreme evil that actual cults have visited upon their members and victims.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Created2Write said:


> I know that, socially, "Nice guy" has a specific meaning and is attributed to a handful of specific qualities, but I dislike the label. If I were to describe my husband, one of the words I would use is "nice", because he really is. I hate that a _good_ thing, niceness, is labeled as something negative. And that the opposite of a Nice Guy so often turns out to be a jerk, is considered acceptable and normal.


That is why I always place it in quotes, capitalize it, bold, italics.... You get the drift. I don't mean a nice person. I mean the urban dictionary definition.


----------



## Happyfamily

ocotillo said:


> I do think we're approaching the status of colloquialism with the term, "Nice Guy" though.


There is an exact parallel in the "Nice Guys Finish Last" expression that vaulted to such popularity in sports. Last mid-century. 

But it was taken as humorous irony there as opposed to something coaches actually instilled in players. It lost its luster, and the PUA groupies gave it re-birth in their propaganda.


lol. Don't play the victim with me, *Scrambled Eggs*. How ironic to see you whining in a thread where the topic is..."nice guys" = Beta.


----------



## Created2Write

....How was SE being a victim? I didn't see that at all....


----------



## EleGirl

ScrambledEggs said:


> Culture, politics, morality ect are not static but are constantly evolving and it happens through a dialectal tension between political and cultural groups and the battle ground is usually is in the language. There is no such thing as an absolute permanent meaning for a word as language is also evolving.. In other words everybody fights over the meaning of words as they fight for what they value, but that does not make the Republican party, the Catholic church, or Green Peace cults.
> 
> What makes a cult a cult is the lack of tolerance for others ideas, including others definition of words, as well a typical singular focus on a personality as the fount of purity/knowledge/holiness, whatever. However misguided they are, PUA is not a cult and to call them so diminishes the tragedies and extreme evil that actual cults have visited upon their members and victims.


This is and has always been true. The changes in language since the dawn of recorded history have been maticulously recorded by those who study it... linquists. I've seen this happen in real time during my life time both here in the USA and in other countries where I've lived. One my my father's disciplines was linguistics. As far back as I can remember the topic of how language changes everything as all else in the world changes. 

I also agree that using the word 'cult' so loosely only serves to deminish the harm done by actual cults.


----------



## Ripper

SimplyAmorous said:


> Yes.. go here >>  No More Mr. Nice Guy Self-Assessment


How did a complete d*ck like me score a *29*. That quiz isn't fit to wipe your @ss with.


----------



## Personal

SimplyAmorous said:


> Yes.. go here >>  No More Mr. Nice Guy Self-Assessment


I scored 33.


----------



## FormerSelf

Ouch. I'm not even gonna say what score i got. As I said, I'm a recovering Nice Guy.


----------



## Caribbean Man

EleGirl said:


> I also agree that using the word 'cult' so loosely only serves to deminish the harm done by actual cults.


I agree with happyfamily use of the word " cult."

The term " cult" has several precise definitions.
Which definition is the right one depends on the context which it is applied.
A fitness cult is different to a religious cult is different to a suicide cult and so on.
All cults aren't necessarily evil , but they tend to be manipulative and controlling , especially of people who see themselves as victims in one way or another.

For eg, here are some definition from Mirriam Webster online;

_1 : formal religious veneration : worship
2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>
5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad
b : the object of such devotion
c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion_

Anything that has sizable following, demands strict adherence and excessive devotion to its cause,doesn't encourage free thinking , stifles free speech , whether it's social ,political IMO is a cult.

I left out religious because there is a definite sociological classification called
"_ the church sect continuum_ " used to define modern religious sects and cults.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

Caribbean Man said:


> Anything that has sizable following, demands strict adherence and excessive devotion to its cause,doesn't encourage free thinking , stifles free speech , whether it's social ,political IMO is a cult.
> 
> I left out religious because there is a definite sociological classification called
> "_ the church sect continuum_ " used to define modern religious sects and cults.


You do realize that, by your definition, Che veneration is a cult, and in particular the government of Cuba, among other governments, is a cult? Just as an example.

Unlike a number of posters in this thread, including you, I take no issue with the rhetorical construct of building a premise through a definition/redefinition of a term, but given the discussion we have been having it seems very ironic to see you do it.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

Happyfamily said:


> lol. Don't play the victim with me, *Scrambled Eggs*. How ironic to see you whining in a thread where the topic is..."nice guys" = Beta.


I am sure I have no idea what you are talking about and I assure you that I don't feel like the victim nor is it reasonable that I be caricatured as such in my pointing out of your rhetorical transgressions. In particular that of ad hominem.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

Ripper said:


> How did a complete d*ck like me score a *29*. That quiz isn't fit to wipe your @ss with.


I hate quizzes like that because, for me, the answers are very different based on the group I'm thinking of.

If I think of how I am towards strangers, my number is much lower than for my wife and kids. My extended family is closer to the stranger section than my wife and kids.

It just goes to show how inaccurate they are.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

Dad&Hubby said:


> I hate quizzes like that because, for me, the answers are very different based on the group I'm thinking of.
> 
> If I think of how I am towards strangers, my number is much lower than for my wife and kids. My extended family is closer to the stranger section than my wife and kids.
> 
> It just goes to show how inaccurate they are.


I agree, but I think the key is not wither you are actually "nice" in these ways as a matter of behavior, but the higher you rate these the more it betrays that sort of passive agressive behavior that the author seems to target. What i mean is, that if you feel you are overly nice, you have a problem, regardless how well your actual behavior maps to that. 

I came to this idea after I took the test which I think relates to my score being so high. The test needs to be taken with your emotions and not with a rational detached analysis of your behavior for it to be effective.

In this way the test is actually a bit clever, but it almost needs to be administered by a coach/therapist to score properly.


----------



## jorgegene

Whew! 

I just barely made it inside the 'nice guy tendencies' category.

I scored 50.

Better watch myself and get a bit meaner.


----------



## jorgegene

So close it means on any given day I might be a nice guy or on other days not. [email protected]


----------



## Deejo

jorgegene said:


> So close it means on any given day I might be a nice guy or on other days not. [email protected]


Don't fret about it. Nice Guys fret.


----------



## jorgegene

Deejo said:


> Don't fret about it. Nice Guys fret.


I'll do a project a week.

Tomorrow. I'm going out and grabbing an old lady's purse


----------



## jld

jorgegene said:


> Whew!
> 
> I just barely made it inside the 'nice guy tendencies' category.
> 
> I scored 50.
> 
> Better watch myself and get a bit meaner.


----------



## jld

Caribbean Man said:


> Anything that has sizable following, demands strict adherence and excessive devotion to its cause,doesn't encourage free thinking , stifles free speech , whether it's social ,political IMO is a cult.


:iagree:

As soon as you get the feeling that it is not okay to say something you sincerely believe, because it is not "correct" in some way, and you will feel sanctions from the group, you may be dealing with a cult.


----------



## WillinTampa

I don't know what's a "nice guy" or not, but I do know that when a woman complains about nice guys, its a red flag.

I have found that people who are suspicious of other people's motives, usually have a tendency to have underlying motives themselves.

Often our disdain for others is a mirror to our true selves.

As rule: People who don't trust other people, can't be trusted themselves. 

So, if you meet a woman that insists that all nice guys aren't really nice, hide your silverware.


----------



## greenfern

Happyfamily said:


> No, you are discussing your own view of what you think to be recent history of your own country, which is in error on a number of important points.
> 
> Even within your own country you seem ignorant of major differences like plural marriage, let alone the rich diversity of women's experiences within the "standard" archetypes.
> 
> The most important fallacy by insinuation is that rich people are happy and poor people are miserable. I know you will claim not to be doing that, but it is clear that you are. I am supposed to fear this misery.
> 
> 
> 
> Since fear-mongering about income is your central tenet, it is absolutely relevant.
> 
> See how you can't bring yourself to acknowledge living in poverty was no big deal to me? Because_ fear is everything _in your argument. If it is no big deal, you have no argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't minimize what you are doing. It comes down to money vs. happiness. Here is an article in Forbes on that score, and there are many similar:
> 
> Money Won't Buy You Happiness - Forbes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You take the item constituting 1% of happiness and base your whole argument upon it, to the exclusion of the other 99%.
> 
> So no, I don't accept this is "all I am doing". If you start with a false premise about history, restrict our attention to some tiny fraction of the population, upon some insignificant point, and then tell me this is driving gender relations - I object.


Lots of aggression here..hard to respond.

I'm not talking about wealth I'm talking about the ability to support yourself at a comfortable standard of living in your country. My country does not happen to be the US btw. But, my definition of a comfortable standard of living in north america or europe would be a house over your head, reasonable level of health care and access to social services, and food. I would certainly be fearful of my future if in the case of a divorce, I could not afford this (my definition) of comfortable standard of living.

I just think maybe you are misunderstanding my intention otherwise I don't know why you are responding so aggressively.


----------



## Deejo

greenfern said:


> Lots of aggression here..hard to respond.


Very un-lady-like, isn't it?


----------



## ScarletBegonias

well sh*t.I got a 43. Now I've gotta go home and tell DH he's married to someone with nice guy tendencies.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Thundarr said:


> I think the originator of the term just wanted to get his book to more eyes so he coined an ironic name. Basic premise is that many guys who think they're nice need to think twice about their motives and actions for doing seemingly nice things. He likely would not want anything to do with PUA. I didn't read nmmng until seeing referenced so often at TAM. But it seemed to me this guy was looking to help people in general.


I have the book, it doesn't bother me at all.. I feel it is GOOD and well intentioned for it's intended audience.....Our 3rd son , he is only 16... I am recruiting him to NOT be so nice to women, because I seen what happened in his 1st relationship , he was taken advantage of....he tried to cater to what she wanted.. she walked on him.. He is a generally nice sweet loving guy.. but ya know, that doesn't get you too far in the dating world...

If there is not enough give and take - loose the chick ! He told a girl he likes yesterday that something she did -he thought was Pathetic.. she was really ticked off at him, swore at him and everything else.. he wasn't upset... he was laughing about it.. and I told him.. "Good for you!! don't hide how you feel..you'll be better off"...


----------



## ocotillo

EleGirl said:


> I also agree that using the word 'cult' so loosely only serves to deminish the harm done by actual cults.


Many observers today prefer the term High Control Group, because you're right. "Cult" has lost much of its meaning through overuse and misuse.


----------



## Caribbean Man

ScrambledEggs said:


> You do realize that, by your definition, Che veneration is a cult, and in particular the government of Cuba, among other governments, is a cult? Just as an example.
> 
> Unlike a number of posters in this thread, including you, I take no issue with the rhetorical construct of building a premise through a definition/redefinition of a term, but given the discussion we have been having it seems very ironic to see you do it.


No.

Veneration or holding someone in high respect does not automatically equate cult like behavior.

I'm sure you hold the founding fathers of North America in high regard.
Well so does the average citizen of South America, Che Guevarra.

In real life,the cognitive capacity to distinguish the trees from the forest is what separates the cult like followers from the free thinkers.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

Caribbean Man said:


> No.
> 
> Veneration or holding someone in high respect does not automatically equate cult like behavior.
> 
> I'm sure you hold the founding fathers of North America in high regard.
> Well so does the average citizen of South America, Che Guevarra.
> 
> In real life,the cognitive capacity to distinguish the trees from the forest is what separates the cult like followers from the free thinkers.


How about distinguishing the "tree" of the ideal Che with the forest of dead bodies at his feet?


----------



## Trickster

greenfern said:


> I just think maybe you are misunderstanding my intention otherwise I don't know why you are responding so aggressively.



FEAR
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Thundarr

SimplyAmorous said:


> I have the book, it doesn't bother me at all.. I feel it is GOOD and well intentioned for it's intended audience.....Our 3rd son , he is only 16... I am recruiting him to NOT be so nice to women, because I seen what happened in his 1st relationship , he was taken advantage of....he tried to cater to what she wanted.. she walked on him.. He is a generally nice sweet loving guy.. but ya know, that doesn't get you too far in the dating world...
> 
> If there is not enough give and take - loose the chick ! He told a girl he likes yesterday that something she did -he thought was Pathetic.. she was really ticked off at him, swore at him and everything else.. he wasn't upset... he was laughing about it.. and I told him.. "Good for you!! don't hide how you feel..you'll be better off"...


I agree though nmmng message makes a lot of sense to anyone reading it saying (hey I do those things). Hey knowledge is power. We should the good and read the bad sort out what resonate with us.


----------



## Trickster

Happy family


I think you would have an amazing career as an Attorney. 

I mean that as a compliment. You are taking on everybody and you back it all up with facts.

My SIL is an Attorney and I have never won an argument with her.... From her POV, she is always right. She has a heart of gold though.


You do seem very defensive... i wonder who the fearful one really is.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Trickster

Caribbean Man said:


> I agree with happyfamily use of the word " cult."
> 
> The term " cult" has several precise definitions.
> Which definition is the right one depends on the context which it is applied.
> A fitness cult is different to a religious cult is different to a suicide cult and so on.
> All cults aren't necessarily evil , but they tend to be manipulative and controlling , especially of people who see themselves as victims in one way or another.
> 
> For eg, here are some definition from Mirriam Webster online;
> 
> _1 : formal religious veneration : worship
> 2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
> 3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
> 4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>
> 5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad
> b : the object of such devotion
> c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion_
> 
> Anything that has sizable following, demands strict adherence and excessive devotion to its cause,doesn't encourage free thinking , stifles free speech , whether it's social ,political IMO is a cult.
> 
> I left out religious because there is a definite sociological classification called
> "_ the church sect continuum_ " used to define modern religious sects and cults.


Does that make TAM a cult?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Thundarr

Trickster said:


> Does that make TAM a cult?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Na. A cult is a way of life while TAM is a part of life.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Trickster said:


> Does that make TAM a cult?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Nah.

Because TAM has no real, collective ideology.
It's a place where people from all sorts of backgrounds meet and discuss ideas.


----------



## Vanton68

Sunburn said:


> Does this mean the modern woman should be the one on her knees proposing with the keys to a new Ferrari as a token of her love?


Please GOOOOOD!!!!!!!!! Let me meet a modern woman


----------



## Forest

SimplyAmorous said:


> Yes.. go here >>  No More Mr. Nice Guy Self-Assessment


Wow, this is great! Dr. Glover can play 20 questions with you, and expose your inner Nice Guy! 

Freud and Jung must be crapping in their graves at their missed opportunity. They got totally shafted by not being around in the age of seminars, workshops, e-books, and podcasts.

http://www.drglover.com/shop.ht


If Glover has his own online university, imagine what Freud and Jung could have achieved in the credit card age.


----------



## ocotillo

Forest said:


> Wow, this is great! Dr. Glover can play 20 questions with you, and expose your inner Nice Guy!


LOL - I think (Hope) most of us understand the purpose of the quiz was to sell the book. 

--Still interesting to see how other people scored.


----------



## Forest

ocotillo said:


> LOL - I think (Hope) most of us understand the purpose of the quiz was to sell the book.
> 
> --Still interesting to see how other people scored.


Of course! The purpose of everything to do with it is selling.

Also of interest is the scoring system. Out of 88 points, there is one, 8 point range that says you are "normal or in denial". Any other score and you are proclaimed to be either cheating, or to some degree a "nice guy". ie: you need to buy the book.

So everyone who takes the test is either likely in denial, or needs to buy the book. Pretty great and profitable psychological synopsis.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Thundarr said:


> I agree though nmmng message makes a lot of sense to anyone reading it saying (hey I do those things). Hey knowledge is power. We should the good and read the bad sort out what resonate with us.


Absolutely.. I can take ANY book... even one I wouldn't care for the author or the intended message -reading it just to learn of the opposing view....and still find some wisdom on it's pages.. their are parts in this book (and really we only read to maybe page 20) that isn't necessary-depending on the situation....it says to NEVER share this stuff with the wife..only talk to other men.. I can attest this was not an issue for us...I was the curious one who bought the Book! He is not the reader I am... we established he had some of those things going on...and some were Half truths... which like you say is pretty normal !!

I liked the *Teflon Men* section..it says 



> As much as Nice Guys try to look good & get people to like them...the above defenses keep people at arms length..(Chapter before spoke of .... Lying, Drawing on their account, Fixing...DEER Response : Defend, Explain, Excuse, Rationalize...Turning the tables and Walls)....
> 
> Like most nice guy patterns, these unconscious behaviors actually accomplish the exact opposite of what the Nice Guy really craves.. While desiring love and connection.. his behaviors serve as an invisible force field that keeps people from being able to get close to him.
> 
> Nice Guys have a difficult time comprehending that in general, people are NOT drawn to perfection in others..People are drawn to shared interests, shared problems...and an individuals life energy...
> 
> Humans connect with humans..Hiding one's humanity and trying to project an image of perfection makes a person vague, slippery, lifeless and UNinteresting... I often refer to NICE GUYS as "Teflon Men"...
> 
> They work so hard to be smooth, nothing can stick to them.. Unfortunately this Teflon coating also makes it difficult for people to get close... It is actually a person's ROUGH EDGES and HUMAN IMPERFECTIONS that give others something to connect with.


I circled that in the book.. How true ...that was about being Authentic ! I can't say my H was EVER a Teflon man .. he's very humble and REAL.. didn't try to make himself out something he wasn't...


----------



## jorgegene

SimplyAmorous said:


> Absolutely.. I can take ANY book... even one I wouldn't care for the author or the intended message -reading it just to learn of the opposing view....and still find some wisdom on it's pages.. their are parts in this book (and really we only read to maybe page 20) that isn't necessary-depending on the situation....it says to NEVER share this stuff with the wife..only talk to other men.. I can attest this was not an issue for us...I was the curious one who bought the Book! He is not the reader I am... we established he had some of those things going on...and some were Half truths... which like you say is pretty normal !!
> 
> I liked the *Teflon Men* section..it says
> 
> 
> I circled that in the book.. How true ...that was about being Authentic ! I can't say my H was EVER a Teflon man .. he's very humble and REAL.. didn't try to make himself out something he wasn't...


This sounds more like an imaginary straw man.

Again I say, I've met few if any men that actually meet this description.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

jorgegene said:


> This sounds more like an imaginary straw man.
> 
> Again I say, I've met few if any men that actually meet this description.


I really don't know what a *straw man* is.. I hear that term a lot on here .... but I don't really "get it" (yet)..

Well...putting this snippet from the book aside... I've met lots of people who LIE and tell BS stories in my lifetime- trying to impress... even had a Guy friend like this...frankly I loose respect for them real quick when they act like this...it becomes a guessing game to know what the Real truth is.....I've even called him out on it a # of times, looked him in the eyes and told him "I Don't believe you"... Oh he puts up with me anyway...

If you can't be yourself, admit your faults/ short comings, be a little vulnerable, have a serious conversation, I would just find that obnoxious in a guy.. or if you are emotionally unavailable...

I like the good guys ... they don't have to be the most exciting, or the most popular and all that.. just be REAL with me.. I think MANY people struggle with that.. kinda starts in High school with peer pressure.. to be accepted , we go along.. It's good if we all grow out of this...and stand for ourselves -even against the wind.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

SimplyAmorous said:


> I really don't know what a *straw man* is.. I hear that term a lot on here .... but I don't really "get it" (yet)..
> 
> Well...putting this snippet from the book aside... I've met lots of people who LIE and tell BS stories in my lifetime- trying to impress... even had a Guy friend like this...frankly I loose respect for them real quick when they act like this...it becomes a guessing game to know what the Real truth is.....I've even called him out on it a # of times, looked him in the eyes and told him "I Don't believe you"... Oh he puts up with me anyway...
> 
> If you can't be yourself, admit your faults/ short comings, be a little vulnerable, have a serious conversation, I would just find that obnoxious in a guy.. or if you are emotionally unavailable...
> 
> I like the good guys ... they don't have to be the most exciting, or the most popular and all that.. just be REAL with me.. I think MANY people struggle with that.. kinda starts in High school with peer pressure.. to be accepted , we go along.. It's good if we all grow out of this...and stand for ourselves -even against the wind.


A straw man is a logical fallacy where you attribute an argument to your rhetorical opponent, usually one that is easy to attack, and then attack it. Usually it is done by a clever response rather then outright restating your opponents words.

In the case of Jorgegene's comment it was perfectly good use of the word, strawman, in making the comment about the OP. I don't exactly agree since my subject/focus in behavior and not really a class of "nice guy" but the use of analogy was sound in my view.

Example:

Obama: "Obamacare will significantly reduce the costs of healthcare."

Straw man attack: "There is just no way healthcare will be free and I can prove it."

This chart should be stickied around here somewhere.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/


----------



## SimplyAmorous

ScrambledEggs said:


> *A straw man is a logical fallacy** where you attribute an argument to your rhetorical opponent, usually one that is easy to attack, and then attack it. Usually it is done by a clever response rather then outright restating your opponents words*.
> 
> In the case of Jorgegene's comment it was perfectly good use of the word, strawman, in making the comment about the OP. I don't exactly agree since my subject/focus in behavior and not really a class of "nice guy" but the use of analogy was sound in my view.



You seem to be well studied in this Straw Man stuff.. reading about it on Wikapdia didn't seem to help me much... so I went to Urban dictionary .. just call me a Red neck...



> *Straw man*
> 
> *1*. Scarecrow which is flimsy and fragile. Therefore, straw man document or straw man proposal means it is a “flimsy” document that is just an initial draft of a subject which is expected to be modified by others
> 
> *2*. A debate technique used to refute an opposing view by misrepresenting the opposing side and then attribute that deliberately misrepresented view to the opponents.
> Someone should start to write a straw man document before we can have discussion for all the details.
> 
> The opposition party has conjured up a bogus image before proceeding to knock it down. They are using that bogus image or fallacy as a straw man for the false and scurrilous claim





> *Strawman Arguments*
> 
> Strawman Arguments (I call them Stickman Arguments, sometimes) are arguments in which someone who you are debating takes your points and twists them to get ground on you in order to form a refutation in which they are correct.
> Person A: *Signs on to start a topic saying:* For anyone out there who questions God because God doesn't always answer your prayers, the truth is: God doesn't help us because we have free will.
> 
> Person B: That's an unsound argument because it has no ground to stand on and it is overused. It's like saying, "What if I'm right and you're wrong and you go to Hell?" to an atheist.
> 
> Person A: We're not talking about Hell, therefore your refutation has no grounds.
> 
> Person B: Please take your strawman arguments somewhere else
> 
> Person A: You're going to burn in Hell for not believing in God!
> 
> Person A signs off.
> 
> Person B facepalms.













> This chart *should be stickied around here somewhere.*


Now that I see this is your Bible Scrambled Eggs ... . it's making a little more sense to me why you were getting upset with others just saying what they wanted to say on this thread..speaking their thoughts.... honesty I'd be afraid to open my mouth lest I fell into one of these 24 categories ...and I'd be labeled immediately.. 

I am sure even yourself , and the best of us have slid into some of these at times in a back & forth discussion..... I would hope we can haggle it out -instead of throwing up Walls or labels too quickly to shut the other down.. does this make sense??








[/url]

Very Interesting though...I learn something new every day!


----------



## Deejo

We love scarecrows around here. Keeps things lively.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

SimplyAmorous said:


> I am sure even yourself , and the best of us have slid into some of these at times in a back & forth discussion..... I would hope we can haggle it out -instead of throwing up Walls or labels too quickly to shut the other down.. does this make sense??



Great observation. Which is why the fallacy of fallacy exists. Fallacies do not invalidate a person or their position but they do and should cancel out the presumption that a supporting statement, once identified as a fallacy, provides any support for that position. 

You are correct and a lot of fallacies where used, or perhaps danced with in this thread. It is not always helpful to point that out so I did not in every case I saw one, but then I am not the fallacy police (woop woop).


----------



## ocotillo

SimplyAmorous said:


> ... honesty I'd be afraid to open my mouth lest I fell into one of these 24 categories ...and I'd be labeled immediately..


There are many more logical fallacies than just those 24, SA, but it's really nothing to worry about when we're talking about subjective things, like opinions, preferences, personal tastes and feelings.

For example, here's a logical fallacy:

*A*. The temperature in Phoenix has gone above 105º every July since temperatures have been recorded

*B.* Next month is July

Therefore the temperature will go above 105º in Phoenix next month.​
Fallacies in formal logic are an issue in an academic setting where attention to form is crucial or when you're attacking someone else's conclusion and telling them they're wrong. 

In friendly conversation, who cares? The temperature probably will break 105 next month in Phoenix.


----------



## ScrambledEggs

ocotillo said:


> There are many more logical fallacies than just those 24, SA, but it's really nothing to worry about when we're talking about subjective things, like opinions, preferences, personal tastes and feelings.
> 
> For example, here's a logical fallacy:
> 
> *A*. The temperature in Phoenix has gone above 105º every July since temperatures have been recorded
> 
> *B.* Next month is July
> 
> Therefore the temperature will go above 105º in Phoenix next month.​
> Fallacies in formal logic are an issue in an academic setting where attention to form is crucial or when you're attacking someone else's conclusion and telling them they're wrong.
> 
> In friendly conversation, who cares? The temperature probably will break 105 next month in Phoenix.


I disagree. The misuse of fallacies go way beyond the academic and in fact are a scourge upon American politics. If we all understood a more rational approach to things it would be better for everyone when dealing in such matters. Though I would not apply them directly to my relationships of course--they do not necessarily belong everywhere.

Also, it is more important that your recognize a logical error than know its formal typology. Your example is False Cause by the way and is on that list.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Deejo said:


> *We love scarecrows around here. Keeps things lively*.


I get more comedic moments from the heavy debates around here..:lol:... well and a little steam coming out of my ears







too...but ya know what.. I LOVE it none the less.. I do have to hold my keyboard at times or I'd probably get banned on occasion. 



> *ocotillo said: *There are many more logical fallacies than just those 24, SA, *but it's really nothing to worry about when we're talking about subjective things, like opinions, preferences, tastes and feelings.*


Oh I see....and this is good -as it should be.. yet sometimes just our personal opinions/ feelings on a subject / those preferences/ beliefs....these can really ruffle some feathers.. as it triggers others - even I do this, then I want to start countering....did it on this thread even! Yep, that's me... I'm sure this is normal too... trying to bring something back to the center... so we're not all boxed..very little is always so "black and white".. 

I think we all do this.


----------



## ocotillo

ScrambledEggs said:


> I disagree. The misuse of fallacies go way beyond the academic and in fact are a scourge upon American politics.


I don't disagree. To plagiarize an introduction to the subject, there is a lot of debate on the internet and unfortunately, much of it really is of very low quality.

I have seen discussion derail into arguments over logical fallacies themselves rather than the original topic more times than I can count though, which is why I think it's important to understood that language, by it's very nature is intuitive and other people may construe a meaning that is semantically possible, but not actually what we meant.

In our exchange here for example, I don't think I excluded any of the middle ground between the extremes of academic debate and friendly conversation or even commented on it all. But I do understand that it was understood that way.


----------



## EleGirl

Trickster said:


> Happy family
> 
> 
> I think you would have an amazing career as an Attorney.
> 
> I mean that as a compliment. You are taking on everybody and you back it all up with facts.
> 
> My SIL is an Attorney and I have never won an argument with her.... From her POV, she is always right. She has a heart of gold though.
> 
> 
> You do seem very defensive... i wonder who the fearful one really is.


Throwing facts at the topic only works when they actually apply to the topic being discussed. Other wise it's just a ploy used to reframe the discussion. Anger and condescension also does not win arguments. It just makes others not want to deal with the person who uses those tactics.


----------

