The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Dear ‘Nice Guys’

Posted on | April 8, 2016 | 117 Comments

While scrolling through Feminist Tumblr today — yes, I read that crap, so you don’t have to — I read yet another denunciation of “nice guys,” which is actually a feminist synonym for loser, particularly a clueless loser who doesn’t know why he keeps losing. In order to rationalize his lack of romantic success, the Nice Guy complains that girls (particularly the good-looking ones he would like to be with) don’t like Nice Guys, a category to which he assigns himself. Instead, according to the Nice Guy, good-looking girls always date jerks, which is a category to which the Nice Guy assigns any guy who is actually dating a good-looking girl.

Now, I despise feminism, and I cannot be accused of sympathizing with these evil hate-mongering women on Tumblr, but young men are not helping matters by saying stupid things that give feminists an excuse to point and laugh: “Hahahaha! Men are such clueless losers!”

Get your act together, and stop blaming women for your problems. Your rationalization is the mirror-reverse of feminist thinking. That is to say, unhappy women don’t want to take responsibility for their own unhappiness, and therefore accept the feminist rationalization that “patriarchy” is the source of their problems: “Blame men!”

This is scapegoating, OK? Don’t be like that. Take responsibility, accept your own shortcomings, and learn to deal with life as it is.

Women don’t always go for jerks. A more logical explanation is that guys who are successful with women often act like jerks, because . . .

Well, if he’s the kind of guy who is naturally successful with women, and he’s never had a shortage of high-quality female companionship, why should he bother making any effort to be considerate?

However, let’s ask, what kind of guys do women really like?

Tall, handsome, rich, muscular — yeah, if a guy’s got the physique of a champion athlete, the looks of a movie star, and the bank account of a successful software developer, he’s not going to be lonely.

What women actually like about guys is not a secret, and if you’re not successful with women, obviously, you’re not an NBA All-Star. A comparatively small number of men — let’s say, the top 15% in terms of overall attractiveness — sail through life without ever worrying about their “game,” as the pickup artists (PUAs) call it. Those guys have had their pick of girlfriends since middle school and, while they might suffer heartbreaks along the way, it’s not like they’re going to have trouble finding a new girlfriend if their current relationship doesn’t work out.

OK, does the natural-born winner act like a jerk? Maybe he does, maybe he doesn’t, but the point is, it doesn’t matter how he acts. He’s got what the ladies like, and he does not need to condescend to them in order to attract companionship. So, yes, seen from your perspective as a clueless loser, the winner may seem selfish, cruel and insensitive. However, his rudeness is not why he’s winning and you’re losing, and your Nice Guy rationalizations are never going to change the score of that game.

How ‘Pick-Up Artist’ Philosophy and Its More Misogynist
Backlash Shaped Mind of Alleged Killer Elliot Rodger

That was Amanda Marcotte’s deranged reaction to the May 2014 Isla Vista murder spree committed by a creepy little weirdo who, in his own twisted mind, considered himself the “supreme gentleman.” As I said at the time, this incident in California became a cultural Rashomon, where everybody with access to a computer seemed to feel obliged to share their own interpretation of why the creepy little weirdo was so creepy and weird. In his 141-page “manifesto,” the creepy little weirdo mentioned a girl, the sister of a classmate, on whom he had developed a crush in middle school. This elicited an angry response:

The woman’s father said it was Saturday morning when his 20-year-old daughter realized Rodger had made her part of his sick story.
“She’s devastated by this,” the dad said in a phone interview. “She doesn’t even remember this guy. . . . She’s always been the most delicate kid you’d ever want to meet. For him to call her a bully, this kid was really disillusioned.
“She was 10 years old,” the dad added. “He was two years older than her. He was in my son’s class. She was in the seventh grade and he was in eighth grade. . . . Can you imagine a 10-year-old kid bullying a 12-year-old? This little, petite girl bullying him?”
In his screed, Rodger called his crush an “evil bitch” who “teased and ridiculed” him and “wounded me deeply.”

Elliot Rodger, the “supreme gentleman,” i.e., Nice Guy.

 

One of the weirdest things about Elliot Rodger’s twisted worldview was his fetishistic obsession with blondes. His father was British and his mother was Malaysian. Could we speculate that his fixation on blonde girls was symptomatic of some kind of weird alienation, rooted in insecurity about his mixed ethnic background? What did blonde girls symbolize in his deranged mind? But who can explain madness?

It is usually a mistake to generalize from the example of psycho killers. For example, Lee Harvey Oswald was a Marxist and an assassin; should we start rounding up Marxists? Jeffrey Dahmer was a gay man and a murderous cannibal; should we start rounding up gays? Ted Kaczynski was a Harvard graduate and a terrorist bomber; should we start rounding up Harvard graduates? People who commit horrific crimes can be categorized any number of ways, but the key point is that very few people commit horrific crimes. There are probably quite a few gay Marxists at Harvard, none of whom are mass murderers.

What Elliot Rodger represents is not “misogyny,” but rather how certain patterns of thinking can trap people inside their own failures. If everything wrong in your life is always explained away as somebody else’s fault — if you rationalize your failures by scapegoating others — you have thrown away every tool with which you can solve your problems.

You are your own problem. Nobody else is responsible for whatever personal inadequacy or bad choices explains why you keep failing. Even if you can point to someone who clearly did you wrong, guess what? There’s a long line at the Complaint Desk at Social Justice Wal-Mart, and it’s a waste of time worrying about it. You think you have problems?

After Anal Rape, Left Wing Activist
Felt ‘Guilt And Responsibility’
His Migrant Attacker Was Deported

Hey, at least you didn’t get raped by a Somali refugee. So you’ve got that much going for you. The key to happiness is lowering expectations, so that merely being adequate counts as success. If nothing particularly dreadful happened to you today, that’s a win, see? You got in your car, drove to work, finished your shift, and drove back home. Think of all the terrible things that didn’t happen. You didn’t get flattened by an out-of-control semi truck and die in fiery crash. You didn’t get carjacked by a psychotic crackhead. You didn’t get fired from your job or evicted from your apartment. You’re a winner, man. Well, what about the fact that you’re living alone, eating microwave burritos and have zero luck with the ladies?

Find an angle, my friend. Improve your fitness, hit the gym, do something about your wardrobe and grooming. You are your own problem, and the thing about having zero luck is, you don’t have to improve by much in order to improve infinitely — that’s the difference between zero and one. There are more than 3.5 billion females on the planet and how completely wretched are you, if you can’t find one who would be interested in you? Somewhere in the mountains of Peru or Pakistan, for all you know, there’s a lonely woman in a hut who wishes she could live in a neat little apartment and cook frozen burritos in a microwave.

Get your act together, young man. Solve your own problems and stop blaming women for your problems. It’s not their fault you’re a loser. Here you are in the 21st century, the beneficiary of 7,000 years of successful patriarchal world domination, and you can’t find a woman?

Boy, you’re letting down the team. You think keeping women oppressed is easy? Maintaining hegemonic male supremacy takes teamwork.

The secret — and don’t worry, I’m not disclosing anything the feminists haven’t already figured out — is monogamous pair-bonding. Each man has to find exactly one woman and close the deal. Happily ever after, ’til death do you part, the whole package. Unfortunately, some guys don’t have the kind of team spirit necessary to victory. They want to “play the field,” or cheat on their wives, or in some other way deviate from the time-tested formula for patriarchal success. Consequently, there has been an increase in chaos and misery, and therefore . . . feminism.

“I do not believe in a fate that will fall on us no matter what we do. I do believe in a fate that will fall on us if we do nothing.”
— Ronald Reagan, 1981

That, my young friends, is the way a winner thinks. You do not have to accept as inevitable some sort of gloom-and-doom forecast of decline (“The Future of Men: Masculinity in the Twenty-First Century”), no matter what any “expert” tells you about social trends. Whatever the current trend may be, winners win, and losers lose.

Don’t complain about losing, young man. Some guys who think they’re “winners” made the mistake of having sex with feminists, and got herpes.

This is another reason to consider yourself a winner, see? You didn’t have sex with a feminist and thereby avoided an incurable viral disease.

Never have sex with a feminist. You’re better off being alone.

 

Category: Sex Trouble

Comments

117 Responses to “Dear ‘Nice Guys’”

  1. Steve Skubinna
    April 9th, 2016 @ 2:42 pm

    Nonetheless, the RadFems “own” feminism. When the UN wants some well heeled American feminists to denounce vile Western men, they don’t get Christina Hoff Summers. If any major news networks wants an expert on feminism, they’re going to the blue haired harpy that wants men to die and women to reproduce by fission.

    Whatever these feminists you mention want doesn’t matter, since they are suffering from False Consciousness. So say the official gatekeepers and speakers for women.

  2. NeoWayland
    April 9th, 2016 @ 3:16 pm

    If The Donald wins the nomination, that will make him the Republican Face of Conservatism for at least the next two years, longer if he wins the election.

    Does that make The Donald Republican? Or conservative? Does that mean that ALL Republicans or ALL conservatives will think and act as The Donald does? Does that mean that he decides what conservatives are allowed to think? He certainly thinks so.

    I don’t think that people who say and do things for the fame or the public validation are really worth much as people, much less a good example of what they “stand for.”

    But hey, that’s me.

  3. Durasim
    April 9th, 2016 @ 3:27 pm

    I’m talking about situations in which a woman claims to be monogamous to a man but is simultaneously having affairs with other men, while also lying to them about being monogamous and faithful. That does still happen. I don’t think adultery or cheating should be illegal, but I do think it is immoral behavior. And the feminists demand that we no longer consider adultery or cheating to be bad if it’s done by a woman, because that would be “slut shaming.”

  4. Durasim
    April 9th, 2016 @ 3:42 pm

    From what we know about Elliot Rodger’s life, this kid did not have a “league.” He had no platonic friends. He did not even seem to have any acquaintances, male or female, let alone plausible romantic possibilities. The people who were his college roommates said that he rebuffed all their attempts at social interaction. He had no social circle from which he could possibly draw some candidates who were in his “league.” He was probably a faceless stranger to all women on campus, whether they were attractive or homely.

    As for him “expressing interest,” I initially imagined that Rodger had been making creepy passes at all these blonde coeds for years. But from his own accounts and from the evidence gathered, Rodger never made a pass or asked out anybody in his life. He was one of those anonymous stalker types that never reveal themselves…until they kill a bunch of people.

  5. NeoWayland
    April 9th, 2016 @ 4:27 pm

    *nods*

    That I can agree with. She promised and she broke her promise.

    As I said above, if you promised to be someone’s “one and only,” honor demands that you do exactly that.

  6. Modern Progressivism | Things to Remember, Things to Cherish
    April 9th, 2016 @ 5:47 pm

    […] Kinda like this: […]

  7. From Around the Blogroll – The First Street Journal.
    April 9th, 2016 @ 6:13 pm

    […] Robert Stacey Stacy McCain on The Other McCain: Dear ‘Nice Guys’ […]

  8. Jeanette Victoria
    April 9th, 2016 @ 10:25 pm

    As a retried psych nurse I can tell you there are WAY more men in the psych hospital than women.

  9. DeadMessenger
    April 10th, 2016 @ 4:20 am

    Jehovah’s Witnesses. Meets every definition of cult from Hassan’s BITE model.

  10. DeadMessenger
    April 10th, 2016 @ 4:23 am

    Well…I always hang it on the outside, and so did my mom and aunts. And my sisters-in-law. I don’t know what the men would’ve done, because I never knew any of them to actually replace the roll. Maybe it’s a Southern thing.

  11. DeadMessenger
    April 10th, 2016 @ 4:30 am

    There’s plenty of male whackadoodles; ask Jeanette Victoria. If those are outliers, so are feminists. Making out that ordinary women, including your own wife and daughters, are mental when they behave the way God created them to is insulting. What’s the deal here, QM, God made a mistake? Seems to me that your arbitrary definition of “messed up” is the problem. You guys are defining anyone not like you as insane, and that road is a two way street.

  12. Eric Ashley
    April 10th, 2016 @ 9:13 am

    Sorry. Bad spelling error. Ewww.

    ‘taking them from their pedestal’ yes, thats what I meant.

  13. Quartermaster
    April 10th, 2016 @ 10:29 am

    I’m not talking about wackadoodles, and Jeanette is correct about the people that normally inhabit nut houses. I am talking about living life on emotion vs logic. Few women are ruled by logic or reason. few go into Engineering, and even the ones that I knew, led compartmented lives. If noticing that is insulting, so be it.

    God didn’t make a mistake. God designed women to have what was needed to rear and nurture kids. He created man with the tools needed to got out and kill Bambi to feed the mother and children.

  14. Quartermaster
    April 10th, 2016 @ 10:30 am

    Absolutely true.

  15. Joe Guelph
    April 10th, 2016 @ 2:13 pm

    Q: What do you get when you cross a Jehovah’s Witness with a Unitarian?
    A: Someone who goes from door to door… but isn’t quite sure why!

  16. DeadMessenger
    April 10th, 2016 @ 3:19 pm

    I think you’re wrong that women “live life” on emotion vs logic. You make it sound like 100% either/or. If I, for instance, cry sometimes when something touches my heart, or when deeply grieved, I can’t see where that is a portrayal of how I “live life”. I also have a hard time accepting that women in engineering school go around having emotional breakdowns all the time, which is how you make it sound. For that matter, men have fits of anger, an emotion that God specifically condemns.

    If it is your claim that women make decisions based upon emotion, and men make decisions based upon logic, I dispute that also. I’m not that way, and I’m not in some kind of minority. Yes, there are people who do – *cough*SJWs*cough* – for instance, but they are just as likely to be men as women. What’s more, making a decision based upon logic, then reacting emotionally to what you know you must do, does not mean that the decision itself was based on emotion. And finally, thinking with one’s little head can hardly be described as logical, and we know which group tends to do that.

    You falsely ascribe the thoughts and actions of nuts and idiots to normal people, and it’s wrong. What’s more, military service, such as you had, involves training oneself to set emotion aside. Your claims would thus be more accurately directed towards military vs non-military, rather than men vs women.

  17. Paul Ryan – The UnCandidate | Regular Right Guy
    April 11th, 2016 @ 12:16 pm

    […] Dear ‘Nice Guys’ […]