@Durek_The_Bald One thing I want to clarify and add to the “being nice is dangerous” trope and other dirt dished on nice guys is that just because it’s possible to abuse and exploit “nice” people, doesn’t make it right. If “nice guys” snap making them dangerous, that should be on the abuser.

Perhaps it would behoove us to categorize various types of “nice” (not merely kind) guys:

1) The white knights and male feminists who throw other men under the bus and pander to women trying to get laid. Sadly, these men WERE rewarded in the past (as literal white knights) with marriage. Our modern dystopia is chivalry taken to the logical extreme.

2) Wimps. Unlike white knights, they simply want to behave and don’t stand up for themselves (or anyone else). This particularly category is thought provoking because our western civilization’s existential crisis can be pinned on the checking-out of most men in personally participating in the political process. I don’t just mean voting, but rather seeing politics in their terms instead of following ideological lines of repeating party talking points. I think our oligarchs favored this because it was convenient to transform western men (back) into feudal serfs. Feminism and white guilt undid CENTURIES of working class social empowerment going back to the Khmelnytsky Uprising and Voltaire.

I like to tell feminists (male or female) that they’re DUPES of the Patriarchy, not rebels against it.

What’s amusing is that women claim to want the above two types of men and, until recently, rewarded them with marriage and children. Wimps brought home a paycheck and handed it to the wife. Modern women want “tough guys” who stand up to them but somehow also will give them what they demand. Ironically, they’ve shot down the very men their revolution claimed to have wanted men to become.

3) This is perhaps what you are referring to as well as the Nice Guys Reddit Channel: Lying psychos pretending to be male feminists or nice guys to get laid and then drop the mask. “Nice guy” for them is simply a tool for them to try to seduce women and the reason for them dropping the mask is they don’t have anything else in their tool box so they lash out.

I’m glad Rule 1 doesn’t apply to me saying this on TRP: I disagree with you in that I believe these women are disproportionately choosing bad boys. Yes, I agree women often muck things up and then blame the man afterwards but in this era, they really are seeking out the worst men for the excitement factor or laziness. There has to be a reason why many of these men have multiple baby mommas. We’re in a modern darwinistic dystopia: Universe 25.

@Durek_The_Bald @Typo-MAGAshiv advised me to not see past each other so I’ll start by (hoping) that I get your point that “nice guys” are dangerous, so to speak, both in terms of being too meek to stand up for themselves when needed or snapping later. Tell me if I got that wrong, please.

I disagree with you that this is something women are, “evolutionary repulsed” by them for “personal safety” though. After all, what we laughably observe on WAATGM is how women are AWFUL at picking men chasing after bad boys or winding up as single mothers. It’s like leaving kids alone in a candy shop expecting them to make proper nutritional decisions.

It’s my theory that modern women act this way due to childish immaturity (simply being bratty) and society not holding them to higher standards combined with a society that regards men as sub-human with chivalry/feminism regarding women as “goddesses” or “princesses” and men expected to literally earn our humanity and to continually have it challenged. Like the police staging a break-in into your home if you left the window open for a few minutes and executing you for being so careless.

It’s worth pointing out here that we take it for granted that MOST men are “nice” (in the sense of being kind) and we’re now actively mocking it. Sheesh, imagine visiting Japan and marveling at the clean streets and polite behavior and then mocking it as being “too nice”. That we get “bored” with it because it violates our knuckle-dragging evolutionary instincts to act out in public or to express individuality at all times. That’s precisely what’s happening with western tourists visiting there which disgusts the Japanese and rightly so.

Having going outside of the USA, it marveled me at how, well, things “should” be because that’s precisely how they are, within limits, elsewhere. Women who can act mature and responsible and even, I daresay, LIKABLE. It ASTONISHED me how I actually ENJOYED being around women outside of the USA. That they were genuinely fun, interesting, and even admirable without being masculine or having some agenda.

While it’s important to differentiate between how things are and the way they ought to be, it’s also important for us to accept the mantle of leadership because as much as women gripe about wanting men to “lead” (which means to do what’s necessary because they just want to sit around and do nothing), they have a point in that if anyone is going to fix this in our own personal lives and at a community, it’s us. That’s why we’re here after all. There are hundreds of lurkers who simply read TRP and WAATGM and take away valuable lessons without contributing and that’s ok, but if men don’t do something, we cede the initiative to the worst of human impulses.

WAATGM’s scope is to laugh at the delusional entitlements of modern women and not to respectfully criticize men which is what TRP is for. Since so much shame is directed at men, perhaps it makes sense to state it as, what I seek to do with my daughter, is redirection rather than criticism although sometimes one cannot avoid criticism.

Finally, whenever a woman says “nice guy” in this context, it’s 99% (yeah, I have a study for that!) likely that they’re simply projecting or rationalizing their own unreasonable standards or selfishness onto the men they reject. I disagree with the context of your criticism because it lends credibility to this woman’s thinking.

@Durek_The_Bald @Vermillion-Rx It's likely that women think that their behavior on a first date, when they have massive amounts of power, should be the default for their entire lives. I know someone like that who wrote a dating book for women (she was single at the age of 65 last time I heard). On a first date, many women are little better than bratty kids at the Chuck E Cheese.

Compare and contrast to the romantic courtship between Michael Corleone and Apollonia: He brought small gifts for the woman and mother and they fed him. Apollonia was seen helping to cook, serve, and clean up the dinner.

Another touching aspect of that scene was the warmth of it. Our society evolved to where a man meeting the girl's parents became an interrogation and delivered threats if he misbehaved while Corleone was treated warmly by the prospective father-in-law. One can assess the merit of someone but do so in a respectful manner. That's largely how I courted my wife bringing some wine or goodies to her parents and having a good time. I think it also served as a useful foundation for our marriage.

Conversation about cooking is perhaps a wonderful ice breaker for a first date with a modern woman particularly as good neg game. They won't see it coming when a man talks about how pierogi should be carefully not overboiled lest they "open up" and are ruined or rice cooked in a large pot and then strained.

I’m posting this here because it belongs here rather than WAATGM www.forums.red/p/whereareallthegoodmen/324067/when_they_put_nice_in_double_quotes/7862345/

Response to @Typo-MAGAshiv and @Durek_The_Bald

I carefully avoid shaming language on WAATGM but am aware I skirt the line by politely debating risky discussions because it furthers such dialogue there hence I should have directed the discussion here in the first place.

I read the history sidebar that this site is (partly?) a response to the Reddit page "Nice guys" making fun of "nice guys" who show their "true colors" after they are exposed as supposedly merely being nice to get laid.

Another analogy would be a puppy dog that is naturally sweet but the owners abuse it until it becomes a fighting dog and then say “See? It was a fighting dog all along!” Is it a virtue, or a sin, for someone to adapt to the situation they are in? @Durek_The_Bald called nice guys “dangerous” but the alternative is for such men to tolerate abuse for life without any mechanism to escape it.

I know what he’s talking about such as men pandering to women, but even genuinely “kind” behavior, as he tried to use a differentiating term, is interpreted by many single modern women as weakness such as, say, a woman rags on a date about her problems at work so he lends a sympathetic ear and suddenly he’s relegated to the “nice friend” category.

Further observation that “niceness” was common in the past and appreciated. As modern women gripe that men aren’t “real” anymore, they yearn for a movie image of men a century ago that were as unrealistic as the 50 Shades of Gray protagonist. My grandmother jumped after my grandfather who was a simple nice guy with a normal job who didn’t drink. That’s it. He wasn’t anything special by modern standards. Zero Game. Modern men are shamed who are otherwise decent human beings unaware of how mentally pathological our modern dating culture has become.

@derdeutscher I finished "The Wisdom of Psychopaths" a few months ago. An interesting read that psychopaths lack empathy as we classically think of it, but regard understanding "what makes people tick" as essential to personal success such as selling something or avoiding being used (and, of course, in their case, to exploit other people.)

The pop-culture autistic Sheldon is a great example of an intelligent person who lacks empathy while, at the same time, being exceptionally emotionally vulnerable.

Where I'm going with this is that, I think, RP men are perhaps the most astutely empathic, emotionally educated men in history. Previously, men simply had a system of code and etiquette to live by that largely worked with each other and women. Now that's collapsed in many ways so survival requires a high degree of personal growth, introspection, and understanding of women.

@derdeutscher I took the Clifton asssessment and scored bottom on the "empathy", I suppose, because I kept putting 0 score on whether I worried what other people thought of me and their "happiness". I'm not one of the autistic types who utterly ignore peoples concerns and feelings (just the opposite) but I don't take responsibility for how they feel. In business, I have learned the importance of "making" people happy and monitoring their reactions (it's perhaps more important than my actual "job").

In my marriage I'm the "leader". I find it amusing how women say they want men to "lead" even as they want to tell the "leader" where she wants to go. This basically means, in modern womanspeak, they want to do as they please and the "leader" deals with all of the consequences. If not for me, my wife would be on a continual roller coaster.

Perhaps when women are by themselves, they are "happier" sometimes in a sense they don't engage in the "I give him sex and he runs my life for me" so they wind up in perpetual complaint mode with men versus when they're single, they do have to accept some adult responsibility to avoid starving to death. That's philosophical though because I told my wife she has a CHOICE whether to fret endlessly about house chores and such.

That being said, on average about 1/2 of the women I dated before I got married lived like utter slobs. WORSE than the bachelors. One defining characteristic was that the slob women seemed to have a phobia about dishes. They HATED filling and emptying the dishwasher, one of the most easy chores imaginable, because they either hated doing dishes AT ALL or were perfectionists and wanted to "prewash" them but got busy and the dishes piled up.

@derdeutscher Moze. :-).

I was reading an amusing claim from some spinster that single women are reportedly "happier" than single women. Ahem, as a married man of 21 years, I'm reminded of the joke: A man asks his friend how he's doing. The friend says "I can't complain.". The friend asks: "So that's good?" He says "I can't complain."

Hence, any study that claims single women are reportedly more "happy" is laughable. Women use terms such as "emotional intelligence" but can't decide where they want to go for dinner. They complain endlessly as a form of happiness while, again, if my wife is NOT complaining about something I check for poison in my tea.

I learned about "stoicism" some time ago and sometimes it's taken to an extreme, but on a practical basis, I think it's the notion of finding happiness but not fretting about happiness. That the happiness women out there are the ones who are quiet about it.