Blog posts by the New Misogynists I write about here often seem to be little more than combinations and recombinations of a relatively small number of very bad ideas. Today, let’s look at a blog post from a “conservative libertarian” and creepy Nice Guy ™ who identifies himself only as TIC, which combines a bit of “consent is hard” and “women only like bad boys” with some muddled notions from Evo Psych to conclude that women are such mysterious creatures that no one could possibly know what they really want — and so therefore it’s women who are the ones who are really responsible when they get raped.
It’s an argument that bears a strong similarity to the stories rapists tell themselves to excuse their actions. When people describe so-called Nice Guys ™ as creepy, this is why: in a lot of ways, they think like predators. In the case of TIC here, exactly like predators.
TIC starts off by ridiculing the notion that “no means no.”
Women are notorious for always warning men that “no means no”. For us men who have dealt with enough women, we know this to be pure malarkey. If “no” always meant “no”, many men would die virgins. There would also be fewer rapes as a result, because for once women would mean what they said instead of talking in indirect code language.
And now the victim blaming begins in earnest:
Women, many times, bring rape upon themselves. They purposely reject men, even ones they are interested in, in order to get him to chase her. Since women love to be the prize and the center of attention, leading a man on a wild goose chase through all sorts of hoops and mind games is all too common in today’s society.
Now, if this were actually true it would be, well, sort of annoying for straight men who don’t like jumping through hoops. TIC, though, seems to have convinced himself that the fact that some women play coy in the dating world somehow makes it literally impossible for men to tell when and if they’re raping a woman.
What this does is blur the line between what is acceptable for a man to do to a woman and what is not…because once we can all agree that women want to be chased, we can understand what a predicament it puts men into. Since “no” does not always mean “no”, there is no real way for a man to know when to stop his advances upon a woman.
TIC now pulls out some half-baked Evo Psych to bolster his alleged argument:
My theory as to why women give such pieces of advice goes back to dark triad genes or the lack thereof. You see, when a woman tells a man that he should just be himself, or to respect women, or to give them compliments, or that “no means no”, what she is actually doing is bullshitting the male. This is a weeding out mechanism that women use in order to ensure that men who don’t get it never will.
He follows this up with a fairly standard Nice Guy ™ whine.
You see, women do not want nice guys to propagate their genes. They do not wish for them to be successful with women. This is why advice coming from women is never good; it has been sabotaged from the get-go.
Well, actually, If women are telling Nice Guys ™ that “no means no” because they don’t want to have sex with these Nice Guys ™ aren’t these women, however mean you think they are, communicating what they want pretty clearly?
TIC moves on to another standard Nice Guy ™ complaint: that women actually get to turn down men for sex. Never mind that men also have the right to refuse sex with anyone they want. To the dedicated Nice Guy ™, the fact that women can say “no” means that they’re the ones running the show. And doing a terrible job of it, to boot.
Women have the power and control in the dating scene. This is important to note because it means that any and every problem with society in the context of female-male relations falls on the shoulders of women themselves.
And we’re back in Evo Psych-land again:
If women decide to start dating men who are genuine, nice, and honest, then that is what most men will become. Since women, however, are only attracted to males with dark triad genes, that is what most men strive to be. The ones that do not either are alone or being used.
Therefore, women are responsible for getting raped:
[S]ince women have decided to make men chase and act in an overly-aggressive fashion in order to get sex, the rape culture pervades society. Make no mistake about it, women invariably cause most rapes.
Oh, but ladies, TIC isn’t necessarily blaming you personally for being raped. You may be a perfectly virtuous woman. It’s all those other ladies who created the rape culture that got you raped.
Now, this is not to say that specific individuals who are victims of raped caused it or even desired it. The point is that women overall have created an environment in which only sexually aggressive, narcissistic, abrasive men are seen as sexually attractive (these traits are what women interpret as being “confident”).
They have created an environment in which “no” doesn’t mean “no”, it actually means “try harder, keep going, I want to be chased, I want to feel wanted even though you’ve already made it clear that you want me. I want to play games and toy with you until I’m satisfied.”
Huh. I thought women were only interested in aloof dudes who insult them and refuse to buy them drinks, not with supplicating so-called betas falling over themselves to chase women. At least that’s what all the Pickup Artists keep telling me.
But no. In TIC’s world, women are mysterious creatures who delight in mystifying men, and men have no choice but to try, and try, and try again.
Men are constantly placed in awkward, unsure situations because what women want is always esoteric.
If women are so “esoteric” how is it that so many of them manage to end up in relationships with people they love? Surely at some point they must have managed to convey to their partners what they wanted.
Should he approach? If she rejects him, should he continue his advances because that’s what she may want deep down? Who knows?
Who knows? You should know, dude, and if you don’t, you should find out. Seriously, if you honestly can’t tell if a woman wants to make out with you, or have sex with you, or even just watch an episode of Mad Men with you, STOP WHAT YOU’RE DOING and USE WORDS to ASK HER what she wants.
If you ask if she wants to have sex and she says no, assume she means no, and don’t have sex with her. And don’t assume she said “no” because she thinks you’re a spineless beta for asking. Seriously. If a woman really wants to have sex with you, chances are infinitesimally slim that she’s going to change her mind and throw you out simply because you actually asked her if she wants to have sex. (And if she is that sort of person, count your blessings that you’re not dating her, and move on.)
If the woman you’re pursuing is such a flighty game player that for some perverse manipulative reason she won’t say “yes” when she means “yes,” DON’T HAVE SEX WITH HER. Assume that anything short of a clear “yes” is a “no.” And maybe think about dating someone who can communicate what she wants more clearly.
If you assume that ambiguity means no, the worst that can happen is that miss out on having sex with someone who’s up for having sex with you, but who for some reason can’t or won’t tell you what she really wants. A missed chance to have sex is not the end of the world. If, by contrast, you assume that ambiguity means yes, the worst that can happen is that you rape someone. Err on the side of caution. Don’t err on the side of rape.
Unfortunately, like most of those who pretend that consent is somehow more complicated than quantum physics, TIC doesn’t actually seem much interested in figuring out the alleged mysteries of consent. He seems more interested in providing an excuse for men who want to pretend that consent is so hard, and women such mysterious creatures, that they just can’t help raping women.
For many men, leaving things to chance is not an option. They will continue to press the issue in order to find out the woman’s true intentions.
“Press the issue.” That may be the creepiest euphemism for rape I’ve run across yet.
Thus is the nature of women: enablers of the very thing they claim to despise the most.
No, it’s the nature of sexual predators to pretend that a clear verbal “no” from the target of their sexual advances means “keep pushing,” and, indeed, that any response short of a punch in the nose is evidence that their victim “really wants it.”
Rapists like to pretend that they somehow “misunderstood” the signals their victims gave them. But there’s good research showing that this just isn’t true – and that the predators know it. As Thomas Macaulay Millar has pointed out in a much-cited post on the Yes Means Yes blog, predators can read the signals from their victims just fine. It’s just that they don’t like what their victims are trying to tell them – that is, no. “[T]he notion that rape results from miscommunication is just wrong,” Millar writes. “Rape results from a refusal to heed, rather than an inability to understand, a rejection.”
And this is where predators and Nice Guys ™ find common cause. Predators don’t really care what their victims want, and will keep going regardless of whether or not they get a clear message to stop; pretending that women are mysterious creatures unable to convey what they want gives them a perfect excuse for their predatory behavior.
Nice Guys, by contrast, may not actually be confident enough to believe that the women they fixate on will ever say yes to them. And so they’re drawn to the same specious arguments about the alleged “esoteric” nature of women that predators spout — because these half-believed arguments enable them to pretend that ambigious signals — or even flat-out no’s — are yeses in disguise.
TIC’s argument doesn’t explain rape culture. His argument is rape culture.
Foot note, pretty sure methanol is just bad for you in general.
Argenti: as a topical disinfectant it’s not bad for you (other than the drying properties). It no worse in a cut than Iodine.
It’s certainly better as an indoor fuel than kerosene.
Right, but unlike iodine and kerosene, it both has an extremely high vapor pressure and it breaks down into formaldehyde. I was cleaning with denatured alcohol once and ended up inhaling way too much of it; I was laid out for the entire next day.
Ok, it is fun to light on fire, I’ll grant that. Hydrogen peroxide is my cell killer of choice (the whole set is dis-advised now as they harm healthy cells and apparently water cleans wounds just as well, but I’m a masochist and don’t quite trust just water)
Irrelevant but I think you saved my plant katz, so thanks you! 🙂 Time to rotate my
owlAfrican violet and take my sleeping pill…cuz 5 am >.<Hmm, I will cop to definitely not being a scientist (and I did realize there was a difference between that and the alcohol we add to water and such), but I did notice a significant improvement in my skin after switching away from lotions that use stearyl alcohol as an ingredient. I apologize if I’m spreading misinformation out there, I’m off to do more research…but I still recommend choosing lotions very carefully and I don’t think most you can buy at the grocery store are all that great. 😉
Ok, so legitimate question. Why does everyone put the “tm” after Nice Guys? Is it required? I mean, I understand the concept of “nice guys” as referring to a particular set of guys who only pretend to be nice, so I get that, but I didn’t know they were supposed to be legally (is that the right word?) designated. Sorry if this sounds really stupid–I just never noticed it before.
Also, to make up for my lack of knowledge, here is a link to a website that has every Garfield comic from 1978-2013. It can be hard to ignore the misogyny that is displayed by John at times (or I think so anyway) but it’s worth it, because, well–Garfield.
http://pt.jikos.cz/garfield/
I think it’s just a clarification, especially since it’s hard if you’re trying to compare Nice Guys to guys who are actually nice in the same sentence
*clicks over to garfield link* I haven’t seen the early ones, so I’m curious since my dad said that’s when it was better. 😛
@Fade–Thanks! I’ve always just used quotation marks, but I don’t really blog much, so I wasn’t sure if it was a requirement of the blogging world.
The early ones are definitely awesome. And John isn’t a huge jerk–he’s just a nerd, but treats women disrespectfully at times (like cat-calling). BUT he always gets told off for it.
As far as I know it’s not a requirement.
And now all my childhood memories are coming back
/used to color in my dad’s garfield books.
I’ve also noticed that my rosacea gets worse if I use anything on my skin that has stearyl alcohol (sp?) in it; now that I understand it’s not drying, I wonder if it’s still possible to just be sensitive to it for other reasons? Or maybe it’s all in my head…
Tch, apparently modern Western feminists have no grasp of the concept of death before shame. A virtuous man would rather lose his life than lose his pride!
On the Jayne Hats (since, once again, I seem to have missed the birth, rise, fall and death of a new troll):
Really, the only thing Fox can do is tell people who are selling them to stop calling them “Jayne hats” or “Firefly hats” or whatever. People can still sell “handmade orange striped bobble-head knit hats” and there won’t be a damned thing the lawyers can do, because that’s such a generic item.
And in any case, it’s only for people selling them–if you’re a DIY cos-player, you can bloody well call it your “Jayne hat” when you post the pics online, and it’s no biggie.
As for the why of it, Fox recently sold the rights to making ‘official’ Jayne hats to some company; part of that deal is enforcing the copyright.
Abnoy: Can’t help but notice that you don’t regard being a rapist as something to be ashamed of, then. That alone tells me everything I ever need or want to know about you.
what’s annoy’s comment reffering to? I kind of have no idea, but if it is about not being ashamed of being a rapist, triple yuck. 🙁
It’s referring to his need for attention, as usual.
@Marie, regarding the general like-ability of Nathan Fillion in Firefly:
I think Joss Whedon and his writers have some very interesting things to say about Asshole behaviors in heroes.
It was a long part of the character arc of Angel that he had massive entitlement issues and was sometimes horrible to his friends, and that it sometimes utterly undermined the good he was doing. The message was that sometimes even if you come at something with good intentions, even if you think you’re doing right, even if you’re a person who does Right Things usually–you can still end up the bad guy. You can harm your friends. You can destroy things.
It was a subtle long-burning thing, and I think they were headed somewhere similar with Mal. His toxic views of Inara’s profession caused him to do destructive things to somebody he obviously cared about. There was a deconstructive element to it about jealousy and possessiveness and how it hurts the very person you’re supposed to care about.
I have obviously put way too much thought into it, but it’s one of the things I do love about Joss Whedon’s work, that there is stuff that you can put that kind of thought into.
And I would have loved to see where he went with the length to properly explore that side of Mal.
I probably have different beefs with mal than marie, but oh wel.
My problem isn’t so much that he’s a jerk, it’s that none of the other characters really act like he is. Inara is practically the only one telling him off.
It seems like… I can’t tell how much of it was “we’ll get to this later in character developement” and how much of it was supposed to be good. Like Mal’s super manly defending Inara’s honor thing? She knew how to sword fight better than him! Why couldn’t she defend her own honor? I mean, you could say this is part of Mals character flaw, but the view is kind of supported by the general guy with the miss america sash who’s like “well, if you’re willing to fight that hard…” thingie. I can’t remember exactly what he said. Like it was supposed to be honorable instead of mind numbingly stupid.
Maybe I’m not cutting him very much credit because I’ve been rewatching buffy lately. Xander is like, everything wrong with whedon’s characterizations, IMO. Trying to control all of the girl’s on the shows sexuality and the only time it ever gets acknowledged is when Oz and Willow start dating, he’s like “well, if it was up to me” and buffy’s like “it’s not up to you.” All the other times, Willow and Buffy kind of just ignored it whenever he brought it up.
So Mal and Xander come across similar in that way. Xander doesnt want Buffy and Willow dating people he doesn’t approve of (even though he dates people they don’t approve of), and Mal doesnt want Inara sleeping with people aka doing her job.
The only time. I mean, I’ve only seen 3 seasons, but 3 seasons is a long time to wait for a character to get some character developement.
There’s also Doyle sulking around in Angel acting all “nice guy” around Cordelia and someone’s like “nice guys don’t always finish last” (I so wish I could remember the context of this), anyway.
Basically, after watching a couple shows I hate the “Average male character (this doesn’t really apply to mal, but it does for Doyle and Xander) who sulk around in their fakey friendzone and respect the ladies honor not like those other guys who would totally sleep with them.”
….
If you can’t tell, I am not the biggest Whedon fan. The sad thing is, I used to be, so now I rewatch buffy or angel or firefly to get some nostalgia memories and then WTF moments come up.
This comic pretty much sums up my relationship with Joss. I tend to fangirl him more for his writing than his attempted feminism.
^ Me too. It’s like, when I heard Joss Whedon was directing the avengers, I was like THANK GOD because I knew it was probably better than whoever else Hollywood would’ve put on the job, but also THANK GOD because the characters were already written so he couldn’t slip in a mopey “nice average guy” like Xander or Doyle in there.
I would like Doyle so much better if he wasn’t a 27 year old moping around wanting to date a 19 year old.
/reminds me I haven’t read that comic in a while.
I always felt like Whedon was “feminist” in the same way that the Spice Girls were. Sure, he isn’t as misogynistic as a lot of other Hollywood people, but feminist? Not so much, no.
Also there’s something about the way he writes dialogue that annoys the crap out of me.
“Tch, apparently modern Western feminists have no grasp of the concept of death before shame. A virtuous man would rather lose his life than lose his pride!”
You sound like a parody of a sexist — like from a bad musketeer movie. Congrats.
@canuck
I just do it for clarification. Sometimes I don’t, but it’s so not worth the argument of ‘omg why do you hate guys who are nice?’ when that’s not a conversation anyone else is having.
Quotes are fine too, whatever you want 🙂 Don’t think anyone will mind a variation on it so long as everyone knows what you’re talking about.
Also, are you new here? If so, welcome! 😀 If not, memory fail.
@annoy
He’s got to have a really durable pride then, or else he’s not going to be along for very long…
@howardbann1ster
::shrugs:: perhaps. but I like it when shows actually acknowledge that the jerk characters are jerks, something that didn’t happen while it was around. Going by what was there. I don’t have much faith in Joss though.
@emily goddess
I like that comic 😀 Sums mine up too.
Cloudiah: It’s possible the fatty acids are the problem.
Oh Abnoyance: Tch, apparently modern Western feminists have no grasp of the concept of death before shame. A virtuous man would rather lose his life than lose his pride!
what’s your excuse? You keep coming here, and getting mocked (by ladiez and manginas) so it seems you don’t have that much pride.
Than again, perhaps what offends my, “pride” isn’t the things you think are shameful. That’s the whole, “patriarchy” thing we talk about. Perhaps you should look into it.
Being a rapist… that’s shameful. Being rejected, that’s not. Your mileage apparently differs; you’d rather be a rapist than suffer the shame of rejection.
Fairly new–thanks! I’ve been reading this blog for…oh god, I can’t remember. A couple years, I think. Maybe a little less. But I’ve only recently started commenting. I did offer up the requisite kitty link though! (Garfield). I studied political science in university, and I’m a proud feminist. I never called myself that until end of uni, in a seminar with a totally kick-ass professor. We got talking about how people–especially women–don’t want to call themselves feminists because of the “stigma”, and how that was wrong…I’ve been proud to call myself a feminist ever since.! I still have to work to identify some of the regular trolls though. (I can recognise trolling, just not individual style of your regulars)