Feminism, Violence In the Media, Nice Guys, and the "L" Word

…so one thing I’ve never really understood is how feminism despises “nice guy syndrome” despite criticizing violence in the media, especially towards women. Likewise, you see this smug rejection of the “L” word as if saying it seems pathetically weak and desperate when approaching someone.

This is on top of the deconstruction of family values, religion, and tradition in society which were the conventional ways by which people matured and learned how to socialize in a sophisticated manner. By deconstructing these facets of society, feminism seems to have left a gap by which violence in the media has been allowed to fester in order to compensate. On the other hand, children aren’t brought up peacefully such that nice guys get snubbed off and abused, leading to an implosion of assertive character.

Can anyone explain?

There are many contradictions in feminism. They talk about equality and doing away with violence etc, but turn into raging monsters the second you disagree with their cause.

Equality of opportunity has been achieved; that was about the only good thing feminism fought for. Now that they’ve achieved their goal they have to invent problems to remain relevant. The third wave have moved on to protecting “minorities” as their latest fad. Anything that is in a minority is somehow “oppressed”. So whoever is a majority is now deemed an oppressive pig.

But it’s an interesting question, though. They rally against violence and “power structures” but despise the weak man. There’s no logic in it, except for the fact that women unconsciously hate weakness in men. They do so because for the past few millennia they’ve instinctively relied on strong men for protection. Weak men cannot offer them protection and security, therefore they’re garbage to them. This lives on today in their biology. But it’s odd that they now rally against the very things that protected them in the past. My view for this phenomenon is that the third wave is a rabble movement; a movement from the lower strata of society that despises those in power because they transfer their own problems onto authority. It’s full of discontent, rancour, resentment - basically sick people. This rancour toward authority occurs unrelated with the hatred toward the weak man.

One of the worst things is how they bash on “nice guy syndrome” without understanding that it exists because of feminism in the first place. They think “nice guy syndrome” is all about intimacy, attraction, and romance, but it’s actually about the poor upbringing of children. Boys are treated as guilty before proven innocent who need to be innoculated against being chauvinistic pigs, but in reality, all boys aren’t potential threats. Well mannered boys get treated like crap, and they’re told to grow up and endure rugged individualism. They’re told to assume the risk of getting into trouble. If they don’t, they’re cowards and deserve to get pushed around. If they do, they’re subject to passive-aggressive discipline of not necessarily understanding right from wrong in the first place. Others are entitled to provoke them into getting into trouble which hides behind plausible deniability of simply choosing the wrong option in a game of Three Card Monty.

It’s not illogical though. It’s just psychopathic. They’re not stupid. They just play power politics games.

Also, I’m not sure it’s necessarily from the lower strata. It can also be middle class women bashing on working class men who they don’t like seeing achieve social mobility.

Jesus. It’s like the agony uncle page of the Daily Mail in this thread.

Though I do take strong anti-feminist stances, it’s more against the excess of the culture that it incidentally produces- as if it’s okay as a natural alternative in emasculating men and confusing men’s sexualities.

At root, I support the nice guy attitude, and think relationships should be largely equal… the inequalities being, the man should be the protector when the push comes to shove, and the woman needs to have more fidelity and loyalty to her man… most divorces are caused by women today, 2/3rds of them, and many men’s loves are destroyed in the process, losing their family all together.

Look at Tom Cruise… a example of a perfect husband… people are hostile towards him because he’s a Scientologist and got excited with Oprah Winfrey on a topic of passion to him… but Katie Holmes knew this GOING INTO THE RELATIONSHIP… he’s produced several adult children that are just fine emotionally, and took care of them. He wasn’t Mel Gibson… he’s quite sane. She choose to fuck him over right before his 50th Birthday… and all I head from the female news talkshow hosts were THEIR SUPPORT FOR KATIE! It was a act of sick fucking insanity on her part thinking she would hold onto the kids, and was more wrong for women to unanimously support her without knowing the facts. There was no abuse- Tom Cruise’s crime was being… Tom Cruise… which is Katie’s stupid fault for getting involved with him.

I don’t think it dawns on women how deeply self destructive this movement has been to society- we have a lot of single parent households in this country, and the men are the one’s left out to rot… and the male children see their father get fucked over, and that translates to how they approach their relationships, and it’s a bad cycle. Likewise, women know they can fuck, impregnate, and enslave men- getting knocked up, getting payments, and then NOT remarrying, instead living with othermen- in the US, the requirement for child support goes down when the wife remarries. It hurts his relationship chances, and increases hers. We’ve produced a nation of deranged slutdom, and men are left increasingly more and more disgruntled…it’s no wonder why rates of abuse are so high in the lower classes especially… a stable household is more likely going to pay for the bills, getting their children into college… meaning their kids are much more likely to become middle class.

So… I challenge and get on the nerves of blatant feminists when I can, fishing for their views… if they react wrongly, I blitzkrieg them on a moral basis like I see women gang up on men.

The excuses pretty much water down to this in the feminist camp:
‘It’s justifiable for men to be completely fucked over, because they are the stronger, and they can abuse women, and hurt them in secret, and women need special protections’

I point out that the women getting abused, as noted by Judge Judy… know damn well when they are pulling the right strings, provoking it in the first place. The duty of a man is to protect the weaker woman, the duty of a woman is to preserve the relationship by NOT driving the man over the edge. Every nuance advantage of sex women have can cool a man down, turn his angst and anger back to her in terms of affections. We produce so many nitwit females that they are incapable of this… because mommy was a nitwit inspired by a broken feminism.

I’m for a realistic, unified goal in promoting the best in both sexes. The most important thing we can do for women today is to psychologically break down the feminist movement, and ravage their logic, sending them fleeing. The laws are set up to abuse men without much recourse… in many states, men are the first to lose the children with little or no evidence of abuse, they are required to pay alimony and childsupport despite the feminist pointing out counter intuitively women are now the breadwinners of the household, as well as getting paid less than men (yeah, figure that one out for me, shit contradicts).

If men and women were more equal, there would be less cause for abuse, and poverty. Households would be more stable, better educated, and less hostile and in duress. The middle class will increase. This doesn’t mean asking Obama for more socialism. That only increases the cycle of violence, as it will just go through more socialist funding of battered women, or increasing the size of jails, or of juvenile detention. We need more sane and stable women, who understand their role- taking what is volatile in men and making it work for the benefits of the family, and not to skanking across the countryside flapping your labia in the breeze to every motorist going by.

Less Whoring = Less Abuse
Better Women makes better husbands… better husbands make more balanced children, the males of which are more likely to be nice guys.

All feminism apparently has produced in child abuse and estranged families. I am a stronger real feminists than most of these abortion addicts running around. Find a good guy, or work on making one… and stick with him, have safe sex, grow in love… stay committed, and stop with the insanity tactics. We’re all living in a sick society. I am not saying live in the fruit cellar because the husband is in charge, or stay home cooking and sewing, or accept abuse… just realize how perverted our society is becoming from the propaganda… that feminism and run-away socialism ISN’T making family life, or the life of women better, and work with yourself and your girlfriends into making a more stable, realistically pleasant life. Be pragmatic about it, no absurd idealism. Women finish men… but once the man comes into fruition, be aware he’s going to change you in turn in ways your not aware of.

I don’t push for a world where women live in fear, where men are to live estranged and in solitude, or where gays are hunted or outlawed. I’m likely more allowing and concerned for the well being of others than most care to realize… I just try to keep realistic to where the roots of the corruption is coming from, and in some of the most protected categories of our civilization, the great many of our evils stem, without much foresight. We went in- most of us at least, with good intentions generations ago. It’s not working. Let’s get back to the roots and figure this out, cause the current course is very bad, and the ‘bad dinosaur men’ the most liberal and enlightened of us, men like me, are as much a byproduct of this system as the enlightened femnazis are… and what we’re saying, what we’re lashing out against has a basis in this twisted reality, and we don’t have the whole story until we are heard too. You grow us to be like beasts, don’t be surprise if we lash out- not because we’re evil but because we’re hurt and as confused as anyone else would be in such circumstances. I’ve never abused a women, but I can certainly see from the men in my society why it happens. If it’s not common sense to you, your not paying enough attention, and not being honest to yourselves. It’s natural for most men to be loving, to both spouse and children. We’re raising them to be otherwise. Laws are not going to change this, socialism isn’t the cure- women changing their ways and taking responsibility is.

books.google.com/books?id=G2JBCI … ng&f=false

I found this hard to follow. Could you tell me how you decided that feminists despise the nice guy syndrome? Does this mean they despise nice guys? Or they despise the way nice guys are despised? Something else?

The L word is love? Lesbian? And how did you decide feminists hate this word or thing?

As far as family values, family values have been changing for a long time, with various forces changing it, including what would now be called conservatives? Which practices are you considering traditional?

I am pretty sure feminists tend to be more critical of violence in the media than other groups. How did feminists implode the assertive character?

I mean “love” by the L word, and feminists despise “nice guy syndrome”. They don’t see a problem with people enjoying male violence. The idea of cultivating male charm or charisma outside of elite social status is despised (which is what tradition is supposed to take care of - teaching the general populace about customs and culture).

Men today are unsophisticated due to the obsession of male violence in media. They don’t know how to come off as smooth unless they’re from elite social status, yet still, feminists despise men who try nonetheless in being considerate. On the other hand, feminists want the right to be passive-aggressive in expecting men to assert themselves and assume the risk of getting into trouble by learning from experience. They don’t believe men are entitled to an understanding of right from wrong in advance of experience.

I’m not sure what you’re saying about feminists being critical of violence in the media with regards to men.

Daktoria, once again I question the validity of some of your assertions, but I appreciate the sentiment. But, let’s not focus on which gender has it worse, rather let’s focus on the jackasses who try to promote those arguments. But, there’s no use steriotyping feminists or anyone else. You didn’y verify any of the claims you made about feminists, nor could you being that each so-called femenists is different. Why not just say, “to hell with people who set [any given double standard]”?

So feminists don’t like love? Where did you get this idea? And they don’t like nice guys? Where did you get this idea? Or they don’t like the implicit criticism of nice guys in the nice guy syndrome idea? Where did you get this idea?

Feminists don’t? Where did you get this idea.

They don’t? Where did you get this idea and can you give some examples of what this type of cultivation is like, how it happens?

They do? Can you show me where you are getting this diea?

Can you give some examples, specfic ones.

Feminists tend to dislike violence in media period. They certainly focus more on violence against women in media, but they tend to be against violence in media in general. There are exceptions, but…

Daktoria,
sometimes I enjoy responding to your posts. They are so abstract - and in addition you often are being provocative - that it’s often unclear what any of your ideas are actually referring to in lived existence. You know like concrete examples.
It seems sometimes like some even happened, you abstract way out from this event and come up with a general rule or pattern, then complain about the pattern. Who knows what is really going on. It can be an interesting kind of thought experiment, but sometimes it seems like avoiding actually complaining about what is bothering and also avoiding getting the conversation down to a level where it can actually be useful and meaningful.

If feminism can’t be described then feminism itself is pointless. It becomes a word like this one: fiuwiueiofcneihpierg

But feminists can be described. There are 3 (I think even 4 now) waves.

Wave 1: Universal suffrage.
Wave 2: Equality of opportunity
Wave 3: Protection of minorities or whoever is “oppressed”.

Women’s disdain for the “nice guy” is common knowledge to anyone who has had experience with women. If you’re expecting academic journal articles to do studies or research on this phenomenon, then you’ll be waiting forever; because its feminists and effeminate males who do the majority of social research. And they’re not going to do studies that ridicule their own movement and ideology.

To get any literature on this, you’ve got to read obscure, less well-known authors like Jack Donovan.

In the end, though, there’s no need to justify the thesis that women dislike the “nice guy”. It is, I’ll say again, common knowledge. Just act the “nice guy” to any women you feel attracted to and then wait to be thrown in the “friend’s zone.” Women want men with confidence, not nerdy, desperate “men”.

As far as this last point, nice guys have the same problem with non-feminists. As far as feminists not like nice guys, this makes little sense to me and does not fit with my experience. They tend to be critical of not nice guys, pushy guys, alpha males and so on. Certainly with some feminists they are critical of guys period and no habitual way of relating is going to escape criticism. But in general being a nice guy is going to work much better with feminists. If you mean professional women, which is a group that overlaps with feminists, but is not at all the same as feminists, then, sure, nice guys have a problem romantically with them, to some degree. I mean, if you are only nice, you have a problem. But these women are not going to marry, in general, guys who are usually not nice.

I wasn’t looking for literature, per se, by the way. Just where he was getting his ideas. You’ve actually helped by at least referring to romance, making the issue somewhat more concrete, giving me something to work with and to compare with my own experience. I wasn’t looking for proof, just something to do with reality on the ground. And then also to get a sense of how he built up his belief. Did he have trouble with three women. Did he run a university? Has he been attending meetings of some kind?

I asked around the nice guy issue because it is really quite the opposite of the concrete case. Try being the opposite of a nice guy around feminists and then try being a nice guy and you will learn pretty fast which they prefer.

Fent, firstly all three movements you speak of were or are a monumental failure leaving me to wonder how many individuals involved actually considered them to be the goals in the first place. Sufferage is far from universal. Equal opportunity and protection of minorities are also done in such a selective fashion. Fashion being the key word, that is feigning an interest in helping those for whom it is fashionable to help, hardly coincidentally individuals ephemerally in that fashionable group would be the most inclined to get involved, even if they hardly fit the criteria. I don’t recognize steriotypes of feminists because I’m hard pressed to recognize the objectivity of something so ill defined. I only tentatively recognize the existence of the “self”. It’s a stretch for me to even classify people into categories of race or gender, but the only relevant distinction, if one must be contrived, would be those who’s live’s are shit and those who’s lives aren’t.

Someone mentioned the historical nature of women’s relationship to guys that can defend themselves. Obviously, but why focus on such a narrow part of the underlining issue? Everyone wants everyone else to be nice to them, but not to others if it interfers with their own well being. I speak on this often, but don’t find people inclined to simply agree very often. So ok, it’s grating to hear a lady complain about how “objectively bad” some guy she’s with is, if it happens to be clear to you that he was shit from the start and you would have even told her if she had asked your opinion before getting involved. Supposedly she just didn’t think the guy would be shit to her and since he is then his general shitness is suddenly exposed. So what? It’s also grating to hear any given shit condemn any given person just because that person is fucking them over rather than getting fucked over or fucking someone else over.

All I’m saying is let’s keep the perspective on a wider level.

nvm

This thread appears to just be a pair of guys who struggle to get laid blaming ‘feminism’ for their own failures and, even better, ‘effeminate men’ for stealing their women. Maybe when y’all stop seeing women as something to possess then you’ll get less worked up about them sleeping with Muslims, or effeminate men, or whatever…

If you were following the discussion correctly, you’d see the point being made was that it’s the effeminate men who rarely get laid. They make good “friends”, but not partners.

I guess in your attempt to ridicule you didn’t even follow the points being made. You make a habit of that. Run along now, little man.

So you’re equating being effeminate with being a ‘nice guy’?

No wonder you’re so fucked up.

Little man, when your balls drop you might get a lady one day.

How many ladies falls for “anarchist” angle. :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

I bet you got seriously bullied at school.

As to how easily it is for an anarchist to seduce women - very, it turns out. I’m sure you’re not aware of this because, well, you aren’t aware of very much but there’s a big legal case in Britain at the moment about several undercover cops posing as anarchist who had long-term sexual relationships with their targets, sometimes even getting married and having kids. That’s what the anarchist angle does for you.

Meanwhile, you’re on ILP complaining about feminism while simultaneously jacking off to white-only porn. Or are you the sort of racist who actually deep down finds brown-skinned ladies attractive? (presuming they aren’t feminists, obviously)