Category Archives: nice guys

Amy Schumer takes on “Nice Guys” with “Hello M’Lady”

From Comedy Central’s Inside Amy Schumer, here’s a little skit taking on the phenomenon of the Nice Guy. No fedoras so be seen, but other than that she pretty much covers all the bases, right on down to the neckbeards on some of the fellas. Caution: Mild creepshaming.

NOTE TO ANGRY MRAS: This video does not represent an official statement on the part of feminism. Amy Schumer is a COMEDIAN.

About these ads

I will be giving a talk at Northwestern on Monday on the Mythology of the Friend Zone

The exquisite pain of the Friend Zone.

The exquisite pain of the Friend Zone.

Hey, Chicago readers: If you can make it up to Evanston this Monday, I’ll be giving a talk titled “Escape from the Planet of the Friend Zone,” exploring some of the mythology of this dreaded place. The talk, like my talk two years ago, will be part of Northwestern’s Annual Sex Week, sponsored by the College Feminists. (The talk itself is cosponsored by NU’s Men Against Rape and Sexual Assault.)

It’s at 7 PM in Kresge Hall 4365, which is on the Southern end of campus, near “the rock.” (Here’s a map.) If you’re taking the el, get off at the Foster stop and head east; then a little ways south when you hit campus. I’ll check about parking for non-students and provide details later.

The last time I gave a talk during Northwestern’s Sex Week, some MRAs got a little overexcited and started making up things about what they assumed my talk was about. (They were wrong.) So, just to make clear: I will not be teaching impressionable college students “how to have good sex,” except insofar as I will be talking about how sexist and self-defeating the concept of the Friend Zone is, which means it’s possible that some dude could attend the lecture and decide to stop whining about getting stuck in the Friend Zone, and thus improve his romantic and sexual prospects with that one simple step.

I haven’t finished writing the talk yet, so if any of you have any thoughts on the Friend Zone — or the closely related topic of the “nice guy” — let me know in the comments below.

I’m also curious about what role the concept of the Friend Zone plays in your everyday lives, so I’m going to spit out a bunch of questions that I may address in the talk and may ask the students as well. I’d be interested in your answers.

Have you ever been put in a situation that you or other people might describe as the Friend Zone? Whose fault do you think it was? Have you ever been accused of putting someone else in the Friend Zone? Did you find this insulting? Has someone else, through their own obsequiousness, put themselves in the Friend Zone with you?

Is the Friend Zone a male thing or are there a significant number of women and girls who find themselves friendzoned as well?

Does the notion of the Friend Zone grow out of male entitlement? Is it a fundamentally manipulative to try to pressure a woman into romance and sex? Or does it grow out of male awkwardness — the inherently difficult situation of shy or perhaps socially awkward guys who are still nonetheless expected to be the ones who pursue women rather than the other way around, as MRA types might argue?

When did the term start getting used? The concept is certainly not new, but I don’t think the term is that old. When did you all first start hearing it?

How can guys (or gals) get out of the Friend Zone?

Can a Friend Zone situation — by which I mean one in which one person is romantically interested and the other isn’t — be transformed into a real friendship, or will the different feelings/expectations of the two people make this impossible?

Alternately, can a Friend Zone situation turn into a real romance?

Is the Friend Zone really a useful concept at all? There are very few relationships — platonic, romantic or purely sexual — in which each partner feels the exact same way about the other. There are mismatches all the time. Shouldn’t we just learn to roll with it? Maybe the answer to the old When Harry Met Sally question — can a man be friends with a woman he’s attracted to? — is, “why the hell not?”

 

Wearing a Skirt Has Consequences: A Men’s Rights Redditor defends a man’s sacred right to take upskirt photos

Women: If you wear skirts here, some MRAs think you should be punished for it

Women: If you wear skirts here, some MRAs think you should be punished for it

So we, as a society, have “peeping tom” laws to protect people who might unknowingly expose themselves to the creepy peepers of, well, creepy peepers who get their thrills from seeing and sometimes photographing strangers revealing more than they meant to.

It would seem reasonable enough to consider surreptitiously taken “upskirt” photographs as violations of peeping tom laws. But not in Massachusetts: On Wednesday, the Supreme Judicial Court in that state ruled that upskirt photographs are legally ok, as the laws there are written to apply only to protect victims who are “partially nude,” not those who are merely wearing short skirts.

In the wake of the ruling, legislators and women’s rights advocates are saying that the laws — written before cell phone camera were ubiquitous –  need an update.

Naturally, this has some of the dedicated Human Rights activists in the Men’s Rights subreddit in an uproar. How dare anyone challenge their sacred right to take pictures of women’s panties on public transportation without their consent!

Demonspawn [-1] 6 points 7 hours ago (26|20)  Wearing a skirt has consequences. If we use state violence to protect women from the consequences of her choice to wear a skirt, we remove her agency. This man didn't assault her, didn't touch her... all he did was take a picture of what her choice in clothing exposed to the public.  How is that criminal to the point of deserving of state violence upon him?  This is saying that protecting women from the consequences of their choices in clothing is more important than men's freedom.      permalink     save     source     save     give gold     hide child comments  [–]nigglereddit 5 points 6 hours ago (13|8)  You're absolutely correct.  If you wear clothing which exposes parts of your body from some angles, you have to expect that someone at that angle will see those parts of your body.  You can't tell everyone not to see you from those angles because you're not comfortable with that part of your body being seen; that's ridiculous. If you're uncomfortable it is your job to cover that part of your body.      permalink     save     source     save     parent     give gold  [–]DaNiceguy [-2] 4 points 4 hours ago (11|7)  Ah but you see the wrong man saw it. That makes him a criminal, right?

“Wearing a skirt has consequences!” What a perfect slogan for a “movement” that is about little more than tearing down half of humanity in the name of, what, a man’s right to be a peeping tom? Put it on a t-shirt, Demonspawn, and show the world the kind of creep you are.

NOTE: Thanks to Cloudiah for pointing me to this.

UPDATE: The Massachusetts State Legislature, moving surprisingly quickly, has passed a new law explicitly banning upskirt photos; it could be signed into law by tomorrow.

Don’t Ask: A Middle-Aged Man’s Creepy Roadmap to a Woman’s “Secret Garden.”

Escalation to the sex location

Escalation to the sex location

Sometimes I scour the internet for hours in search of material for this blog. Other times it just plops right in my lap. Today, it plopped, in the form of a new visitor to this blog by the name of J.S., a 52-year-old married farmer (he said) who brought with him some very old-fashioned ideas about love and romance and how men can best access the “secret gardens” of the pretty ladies of the world.

No, really, he did,proclaming himself an infallable guide to

the ‘secret language’( sub and non-verbal communication), the dating game, or how very attractive women go about choosing which men they let into their secret garden and which ones they don’t.

The primary lesson he tried to impart: that the “secret garden” is a little bit like Fight Club: The first rule of Secret Garden is that dudes can never ask to enter Secret Garden.

Read the rest of this entry

Slit Ass Birch Ho: The sad tale of a nice guy thwarted

slitass2slitass3

And that is just the beginning of a wondrous little exchange between a self-described “nice guy” trying out some bad boy charm on a not-very receptive woman on OkCupid who nonetheless deals with his ridiculous assholery with aplomb.

Note to “nice guy.” You might want to reconsider some of your assumptions. And work on your typing.

I found this on the endlessly fascinating, if often deeply disturbing, CreepyPMs subreddit, one of Reddit’s few redeeming features. You can read the rest of the conversation here, and the CreepyPM post here.

When you assume: A “Nice Guy” launches a pre-emptive strike

Sexy buff party guys

Sexy buff party guys

So I’ve been reading Reddit’s CreepyPMs subreddit a lot lately, where the recipients of bizarre and, well, creepy personal messages share them with the world. As you might imagine, some of the creepiest come from complete strangers on dating sites, like the following message received by a young woman on MeetMe, who put up a profile stating that she was looking for friends only (she already has a boyfriend) and that she would talk to anyone.

Well, one young man didn’t quite believe her, and sent this message:

assume

He doesn’t judge, huh? That’s the most judgy non-judgemental message I’ve ever seen.

If you haven’t already checked out CreepyPMs, go take a look. You can lose hours in there.

 

PUA dirtbag Heartiste derides creepy Facebook stalker for being too chivalrous

Actual nice guy

Actual nice guy

Men’s Rightsers and Pickup Artists alike are obsessed with the dilemma of the so-called “Nice Guy” who can’t get laid. MRAs see his plight as a symptom of a gynocratic society in which fickle, asshole-loving women are the gatekeepers of sex; PUAs see it as a sign that beta males need to learn how to imitate the vaguely aloof swagger of the natural alpha male.

And both MRAs and PUAs completely miss the point.

To see just how badly they do, let’s take a look at a recent post from the sadly influential PUA shitbag Heartiste, who uses an alleged Facebook screencap of uncertain provenance as a springboard for a diatribe against the “desperate male,” that is, the “desperate, clingy ünterbeta male” who pursues a woman, often in a weirdly apologetic, even abject way, long after she’s made it clear she has no interest in him.

Read the rest of this entry

A Voice for Men writer laments: “Since the advent of ‘marital rape,’ sex is no longer a loving duty, so it has become whim and weapon.”

Caution: RIng does not transform "no" into "yes."

Caution: Ring does not transform “no” into “yes.”

Has A Voice for Men just declared itself in favor of marital rape?

In the midst of a long and otherwise fairly tedious piece complaining about wives asking their husbands to do their fair share of the chores, Clint Carpentier offers some rather startling thoughts on marital rape laws, and how he thinks they help to make marriage a losing proposition for modern men.

In the good old days, he writes, “sex was a wifely duty she was obligated to provide as per the terms of marriage.” But “since the advent of ‘marital rape,’ sex [in marriage] is no longer a loving duty, so it has become whim and weapon … .”

Yep. Apparently “being raped by your husband” is really just a way to fulfill your “loving duty” as a wife.

So, Carpentier concludes, if wives demand that you do the chores around the house, and you can’t rape them at will, what’s the point of even having one in the first place? After all, he argues, in an age of washing machines and readymade meals chores are easy, and men can get “once per day of blasé sex” from “any street-hooker” or splurge on “mind-blowing sex once a week [from] a well trained call-girl.”

And so, he writes,

If women are demanding that their husbands do their “fair share” of the chores, then why do men need wives at all? In man’s attempt to make their wives lives easier, they have reduced the wifely duties to next to non-existent. Why, women? Why oh why would you drive those final coffin nails of obsolescence in? Aside from children, there’s no benefit left to having a wife.

Well, if the only “benefits” you can see in having a wife are someone who will do the cooking and cleaning and whom you can rape at will, then, no, there is no benefit to you in having a wife now that marital rape is illegal. And there is certianly no benefit to any woman in marrying or dating or possibly even being in the same room as you.

Where have all the good men gone? Well… where have all the good women gone?

That’s right: A man who considers marital rape to be a husband’s right honestly thinks that he’s one of the good ones.

AVFM’s Paul Elam loves to rail against the evils of traditionalism and chivalry. Interesting that marital rape is one element of traditionalism he apparently has no problem with.

Videos to get you PUMPED. Also, a creepshaming manifesto from the Men’s Rights subreddit.

Today I feel an irresistible urge to post music videos. Above, an awesome interpretation of a rock classic that is sure to get you PUMPED for the weekend.

Below, enjoy the silky voice of Phil Collins.

Read the rest of this entry

Hamish the MGTOW: “Underneath those physically appealing pretty girls does indeed lurk an evil monster.”

So beautiful, so evil.

So beautiful, so evil.

Today, some farm fresh misogyny, straight from the virtual pages of MGTOWforums.com, in the form of a sprawling rant on the blackhearted nature of the female of the species by a fellow known only as Hamish. I have taken the liberty of condensing the rant somewhat, and of breaking up Hamish’s walls of text into shorter paragraphs. The original director’s cut of his comment can be found here.

[T]he prettier a woman is on the outside, the blacker her heart is on the inside. Underneath that pretty exterior does indeed lurk a monster. That women are driven by their highly fickle “feelings” rather than by logic is the scariest and most dangerous part about them.

[W]omen are so fickle that they vacillate between wanting Nick the nice guy who will be nice and romantic to them one day and wanting Tommy the thug who will treat her like absolute crap the next day. Indeed sometimes they want both these things at the same time …

What cupcake wants is a composite male, the ingredients of which are a blend of The Rock, Matt Damon, Donald Trump, Justin Timberlake, Hugh Jackman, Mike Tyson, David Bowie, Tony Montana, Ronaldo and Michael Buble …

With women being so irrational, so utterly unreasonable and unrealistic in their demands, it is absolutely inevitable that … there will come a point where she will feel dissatisfied with her date/her fuck buddy/her boyfriend/her fiance/her husband, whatever. And remember what a women feels is her hamster, logic doesn’t get a look in.

For men morality is largely a logical, learned thing – ten commandments, thou shalt not steal/kill, whatever. But for a woman what she feels is the be all and end all … And if that means fucking over and grinding into the dust good, decent men … purely on account that she no longer feels entirely satisfied with him, then so be it – how she feels must prevail above all other factors. …

[A]nd what’s more many women seem to be thoroughly enjoy crushing such men too – the more decent and genuine a guy is, the more pleasure they take in crushing him.

The reason for this is women … see niceness and decency as a sign of weakness and they begin to look down on that male with utter contempt. ….

This explains why it’s always the nicest guys that women fuck over the worst – and why they take great pleasure in doing so and in twisting the knife. To onlooking men this kind of stuff looks like a horrible, unjustifiable act of black hearted pitilessness – but to women, it’s nothing … .

This illogical thinking and intrinsic fickleness on the part of women winds up in women becoming capricious, merciless tyrants. But of course to be tyrants women have to have power – sure they always had the power of the pussy, but much more sinisterly women are now armed to the teeth and dangerous – armed by the law/the state that is …

Women have the state/big government backing them up to the hilt at every turn – to the extent that women now have the power at their fingertips to destroy or at least seriously mess up/disrupt the life of any man they’re sexually involved with – and … many women … can’t … resist abusing this power. And not only to mess up men’s lives and defame their character … but of course to loot men too – often of their entire net worth.

The madness of all this is that the state has placed all this power in the hands of beings who are intrinsically fickle and capricious by nature. So having been armed by the state, women are now not only fickle and capricious, worse than that they have now upgraded to fickle and capricious tyrants, who have a licence from the state to ruin men’s lives on a whim.

Having been so armed by the state, women are now akin to the capricious psychopath boss at work, who fires people just because he’s in a bad mood, or the capricious psychopath dictator, who has citizens locked up or killed on a whim.

In the case of the psycho boss or the dictator, they behave in this manner because (1) they have the power to do it (2) they can do it without any comeback to them and (3) they get off on it.

And this is exactly the dynamics involved when women fuck over men – women fuck over men because they have the power to do it (or more accurately the state has bestowed that power on them), they can do it without any comeback to them or negative consequences for them and they also do it because they just damned well get a sadistic kick from doing do.

So yes, underneath those physically appealing pretty girls (and indeed in many less physically appealing girls too) does indeed lurk an evil monster – one that is armed, dangerous, and utterly pitiless.

And … scene!

The truly weird thing about this rant is that, as some Man Boobz old timers may recall, the Hamish who wrote this rant is not the first MGTOW named Hamish I’ve written about on this blog. But the last one wasn’t actually real: he was a character who appeared, in cartoon form, in the dreams of a Man Boobz reader. As she wrote in an email to me,

after a day of reading a particularly large amount of your posts, I had a strange dream about this guy who sits on a train and describes some STDs he caught in great (and terrifying) detail to whoever is silly enough to listen. His goal is to dissuade other men from making the same mistake he did — having sex with women. Because to “Hamish the Lover” … all women are dirty and evil and should be avoided at all costs.

Now this mysterious dream lover Hamish has a namesake on MGTOWforums.com, writing long rants on how … all women are evil and should be avoided at all costs.

Kind of creepy, eh?

The dreamer also sent me a picture of Hamish the Lover as he had appeared in her dream. Here he is again.

He looks like a bit of a charming rogue. Too bad he’s an asshole.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,850 other followers

%d bloggers like this: