As a fellow number 4 (with occasional forays into 3 and perhaps even 1), I want to point out the dynamic of mutality between the two roles: I am married to one of those genuinely nice guys (after mistreating multiple creepy "romantic" guys, and being mistreated by various cads, jerks, and losers). And I have to say that there is a definite breed of nice guy who wants a bitchy woman to do some or even all of the dirty work that daily life demands...to make sure the plumbers don't rip us off, to make sure we get the hotel room we paid for, etc. Now these guys may SAY they don't care about that kind of crap--and they are genuinely nice and don't like to make waves--but some of them do, in fact, choose bitchy (aka headstrong, assertive, etc.) women like me, you, etc. to whom to hitch their wagons. I don't think this has to mean that they are whupped, weak, or wimpy (although that can be the case, and the power dynamic can all too easily shift from a balance to a landslide); some men who are perfectly sane, balanced, and well-adjusted seem to prefer to have their partners do the public work of the world.
My relationship is like that, and, for the most part, it works. There are times when I wish HE would bawl out the waiter, complain about the wait, etc., and I know there are times he wants me to shut up and sit down--at home and out in public--and let it go, fer gawd's sake. The alternative, though, is to have two people who both go at life full bore, which often seems to lead to them going at each other, which to me seems far more exhausting. Most of the minor decisions in our lives, I make and follow through on (and illness plays into this, but only in terms of degree, not in kind). The few things he really cares about we do his way. If he feels strongly enough about an issue to express a preference, I almost inevitably back right down. And if I want to hyper-manage all the stupid little daily shit, he's fine with it. I have friends who married men who are more "4-like," and while it works for them, for me it would endless skirmishes over stuff that doesn't matter. I like my calm nice guy, but I had to grow up, get old, and learn to appreciate his version of niceness.
>>Really, I think these women aren't all that bright; they may be smart enough in a clever, bookish or logical way, but their inability to empathize with others or consider the broad social complexities of power and self-advancement strikes me as a kind of blindness.>>
...And this is why you're not "SweetheartPh.D."
This is good stuff. I'm gonna read and mull it over and come back when I have another comment.
I know someone who's finally starting to break away from NG#2--the last straw was when they had to move into his parents' basement because she got laid off and he failed to get a job--any job--after several years of trying.
Dorcasina, yeah, I think you and I are slightly different; Mr. B. is definitely mostly a (4), with occasional bits of the others sometimes. And as a result, we DO go at it a lot, and have skirmishes over stuff that doesn't matter--which is why I say I wouldn't want to be married to me, it must be utterly exhausting. But like you, if he has a strong bottom line, I almost inevitably respect it, because I have a lot of respect for clear boundaries. Those aren't the things we fight about; it's the muddly little crap in the middle.
Don't you think, reflecting on the friends we have in common, that there's something about academia and women in category (4)?
Re. NG #2 and jobs/unemployment; my theory is that it's perfectly FINE for a guy to be un- or underemployed, or to earn less than a woman. But that it becomes a "problem" (one that, I think, is unfortunately expressed as a problem with his being broke) because, given that "manhood" in our society still means "earning enough money to support a woman/take her on dates/etc," a lot of guys who are un- or underemployed end up feeling incredibly insecure as a result, and it's the insecurity--not the lack of money itself--that becomes a problem.
>>Don't you think, reflecting on the friends we have in common, that there's something about academia and women in category (4)?>>
Maybe it's the combination of ambition and self-interest--which you need to succeed as an essentially independent contractor in such a narrow field--with the kind of interrogatory self-consciousness and awareness that makes people interested in things like subtext and literary theory?
What's the attraction?
Hooked up with a Bitch, every day is an adventure.
What's the attraction?
Hooked up with a Bitch, every day is an adventure.
I have no problem with someone working no job or a low-paying job or a job without much prestige and dating someone at the same time. The problem with this was that they were a household with one income: hers. She was supporting him completely and trying to finish school, and he was watching a lot of Angel reruns. They don't have children, and he's not trying to get a teaching credential or write a screenplay.
I admit that I get really judgmental about people of both genders who don't work for no other reason than not wanting to pay for their own meals--call it the yuppified Protestant work ethic.
I also wonder, come to think of it, how these archetypes play out in same-sex relationships, or whether there are different archetypes altogether.
The expectations in terms of anger, obligation, and how you acknowledge and express both would probably be different for some--although not necessarily because of gender.
OOH--haloscan ate my comment. I effing hate that. The short answer is YES. I was thinking of Madame X when I responded before; she and I have had a variation on this conversation, since our NGs are in many ways similar.
On the “nice guys” topic—I think there’s a sort of variant of #3 and #4 that is what guys often mean by nice guys—I’d tend to put myself in this category. I know several friends with fairly similar experiences, but I’ll write as me.
I’m somewhat shy, but not at all conflict-averse; what I am averse to is bullying. In high school and college, there was a common pattern; guys who would take “no, I’m not interested” as an answer were a lot less likely to have girlfriends than the guys who would keep asking, keep pushing, keep harassing the girl in whom they were interested. This was really really frustrating; I knew from female friends and family that such aggressive pursuit (at times, IMO, bordering on assault) was not something women appreciated—but it seemed the guys who were doing it had pretty, popular girlfriends, and the ones who weren’t didn’t.
The problem lessens with maturity; pushy manipulation works better on 18-year-olds than 25-year-olds. But the unpushy (nice) guys who DID have girlfriends in college tended to have girlfriends in one of two categories; either they for some reason weren’t popular (not pretty enough, not classy enough, etc) or they were sufficiently hard-headed to give “no” as an answer and make it stick, giving the non-pushy guy a chance. Those were the couples that I think of when I think of “nice guy and bitchy woman”--since the woman, having been unequivocal in her rejection of the bullies, was often considered something of a bitch.
There were a couple of male bloggers with recent posts on this topic that I found interesting: Mixing Memory and Lance Mannion.
The NG#1 is called, in psych literature, "putting on a pedestal". Stephen Ducat, in the beginning of "The Wimp Factor", describes 5 main ways men think of and treat women. Since he is focusing on conservative men who got their mysoginy from their parents' family dynamics, he does not go into "nice guys" very much.
Devoting so many posts to Ducat's "femiphobia" and Lakoff's parenting schemes, I still do not get how a woman becomes Anne Coulter, or Laura Bush....
Ann Coulter, I think, is obviously bitch archetype (1). Laura Bush, I suspect, just isn't that bright; at least, not bright enough to chafe at being married to an idiot and having to play the role of quiet traditional wife who keeps her opinions under wraps when they conflict with what her husband thinks.
A very insightful post - something I will mull over. If I get sudden sparks of great insight and post about it, I'll let you know...
I don't know which bitchy category I'd fit into, but I know I fit something or some mixture of categories.
I also don't know what category my NG fits into, but a lot of those categories suited him in one way or another.
I think somewhere down the line, someone has to speak up. If NGs aren't pushy, then how does any girl, or guy for that matter, know they are interested in them? Someone has to say something down the line.
I have a friend that is having a "nice guy" controversy on his live-journal, but the main thing with him, and with other nice guys I know, is lack of the ability to say what they want, in any way. No roses, no talking, no conversations, or sometimes just not the right kind of conversations.
I ended up with my NG because we met on the internet, no barriers. Sometimes I wonder what life would be like if people could be more honest about things and say what they think/mean.
Just some thoughts, I don't know everything either.
Really interesting post, B. I would add to your #4 Nice Guy that he's also someone who will have a genuine fight with his partner, inevitably a #4 Bitch, and when that fight happens, he'll fight fair. (I suppose #3 Nice Guy might be the same, although I've never been in a relationship with one.) Nice Guys #s 1 and 2 are resolutely passive aggressive, avoiding fights and acting out in insidious and unfair ways - and in the end, that's what makes them not really Nice Guys.
#4 Nice Guy will stand up for himself and not let his Bitch walk all over him, which is, in the end, why we love and respect them.
Amen to the importance of knowing how to fight.
Great post--I particularly like your analysis of NG #1, of whom I've known several (often in less obviously romantic form), and who always rather frighten me. Particularly the deep deep hostility and narcissism that always came out when they'd talk about how "woman just like assholes; they don't like nice guys."
A good friend of mine is married to one of these, and though she's a very, very dominent woman, I sometimes worry that one of these days he's going to snap and turn on her.
Add me in as another academic who fits in to the #4 bitch category pretty heavily.
And my partner is pretty much a #4 nice guy - with some #3. And to agree with above comments - yeah I often am the one who stands up to people in public for us - argues with the phone company etc. But he's the one who goes on mass tidying fits when he can see me becoming a stressmonkey. Does little things without being asked. And also notices the headaches coming on before I do (that's probably just self-preservation, but it helps me too)
I hope my honey isn't reading this thread. Yikes. I don't want him asking if 40 years with a no. 4 is worth it! I was hoping the stressmokey thing is something I'd grow out of. But probably NYC is not the best venue for that.
I find this discussion very interesting, because my mom would probably fall into (4) with a bit of (3) mixed in for good measure. She is smart, confident, and willing to make sure she gets the hotel room she paid for, as dorcasina said. She's also incrediably high strung and stresses out way too easily over the little things (though she is taking the prospect of being laid off from her job by next year remarkably well). And I would say my step-dad is a genuinely nice guy, calm, relexed, and in need of someone who will do a lot of the dirty work life demands. Sounds like a good balance? You would think, except that my mom has "broken" my step-dad. They used to fight a lot, and that was good, because my mom needed someone to confront her and show her when she was overreacting, or taking out stressful work situations on the people she loves. They don't fight much anymore, because my step-dad has basically given up, just goes through life trying not to piss my mom off. I would call this the flip side of the bitchy woman/nice guy relationship. I think the bitchy woman can do great things for the nice guy, and the nice guy can do just as many great things for the bitchy woman. The trick for the bitchy woman is to relax and open up enough to let the nice guy help.
I think the shy category also needs to be split up into "genuinely nice guys who are shy" and "insecure, passive-agressive misogynists". I used to hang out in an online support group for shy people, until it got taken over by the latter sub-group who spent all their time complaining about how they were Nice Guys (ie they probably wouldn't hit a woman) and just because they were a little shy (ie could not hold a conversation) evil women wouldn't give them a chance to prove their niceness (which would usually be manifested in NG #1 behaviour). If a women ever turned down a date for any reason (which was always decoded as the guy wasn't good looking enough) she was an arrogant bitch who deserved an abusive boyfriend. But, of course, they weren't misogynists, their bitterness was purely a result of the terrible treatment women had handed out over the years and as soon as women stopped having standards and gave them a chance their inner niceness would shine through.
Agreed, Carol. I worry about that happening, which is one reason why I say that (4) isn't an entirely good thing. And I suspect that what happens when NG 4 starts sliding into NG 2 is that B 4 just becomes even more of a bitch, b/c NG 2 is so frustrating, and then the cycle just continues to spiral out of control...
Pigpuppet, isn't that NG #2?
Interesting dissection and largely I agree. But I think you skimmed over an important facet of why some men find bitches attractive: a lot of "bitches" (numbers 1 - 4), being strong and frequently type A, take a lot of care of their appearance and/or were blessed with good genes that contributed to their confidence to begin with.
In that case, the men may be more attracted to the package; their willingness to accept bitchiness is the price they feel they must pay. Of course, my problem with this is that after several such encounters/relationships, these men start extrapolating that all women are crazy.
That's very interesting, and I think it would play into the sense in which "bitch" is often, in part, a desire for power. Surely "taking care of one's appearance" (i.e., being kind of femmey) is culturally rewarded and accrues power for women. It's kind of that double-edged sword thing, and it might be one reason why there's occasionally some tension between feminists who are "nice women who are often overlooked" and the bitchier type of feminist.
Hmmm.
The NG#1 sort will eventually expect something HUGE in exchange for all those gifts that you didn't really want. My experiences were mostly in high school, but I had a college roommate with a real winner in this category. Please (fill in the blank - ex. iron me a fresh shirt every morning). No?! But I bought you that (fill in the blank) you thankless bitch.
NG#1 creeps those of you with good radar out because they are trying to purchase you and eventually turn you into their personal servant/mommy (Don't even get me started on mamma's boys).
I had never really considered the fact that a NG #4 could slip into NG #2 as a result of being too tired to directly confront a bitchy woman. Though now that you mention it, I see that is exactly what my step-dad has been doing. Definetly a viscous cycle that they can't seem to get out of. Now they fight about stupid stuff, like what time should they leave for the airport to catch their flight? So that leaves two questions: How can you prevent B#4 from being too dominant in the relationship, and how do you get out of the cycle of passive-agressiveness on the part of the guy, and super-bitch mode on the part of the woman, once you've slipped into it?
I actually think that sometimes 4 is just 3, the main difference being a public/private distinction. At least for me, its hard to know when I'm standing up for myself in my home/relationship/domestic labor situation vs when I'm being a neurotic freak.
And its hard to trust the Mr's judgement of the situation, because its clear to me that patriarchy makes it really easy for him to Totally Not Get It that he leaves everything out for me to pick up on a regular basis. He really thinks he does 1/2. Maybe he does--its just a he-said-she-said sort of thing after all...
Anyway, I think the same qualities that make me a righteous babe in public situations-- analytical thinking skills, willingness to take risks, ability to clearly express myself on the spot--are the same ones that can leak in to freakazoid behavior in the smaller fun-house-mirror-like atmosphere of domestic bliss.
Also, sometimes I forget that the same tactics I would use on an enemy (asshat cowker, street harasser, political opponent, shiesty plumber) may not be appropriate to deploy on feminist-partner-man who loves me and wants to be on my side. The problem is, that, with him, I might actually win the fight, thus making me want to fight harder, even if I'm not sure if I've already launched myself head first in to headcase behavior.
I second that - something I need to work on with my SO.... No idea how to go about that, of course, but I can tell it's important...
I haven't read the comment thread yet, though I've read DrB's post. I was the one who got the Majikthese thread going with my intemperate response to something Amanda said. After a certain point I was mostly responding to flames sent my way by Nancy and SFBritgirl. (I like flame wars fine, though Majikthese probably resents my junking up her site.)
A version of my response is at the URL. My persona is somewhat fictionalized there, but not terribly off. (The Majikthese thread was pretty prolific and led to several linked thread.)
The sad thing for me is that the situation seems not much improved since I was a young college student in 1965 or when I was an older college student in 1980. (Incidentally, Majikthese's site is normally an all-ages site; I wasn't creepily hanging around there to flirt with college girls.)
Regarding DrB's post, what she calls "The romantic nice guy" is exactly the guy I would call a jerk. He's suave enough and doesn't grope women in elevators or hoot at women on streetcorners, but his feelings about women are the same.
Guys can spot these guys immediately, partly because guys like that brag a lot. But unless you're very, very close to a woman, you can't go up to her and say "Oh, you know, X is a charming jerk." Because then you're just being the lame wimpy whiny self-professed nice guy.
So women don't want to be abused, but they do make bad choices. Type B and C nice guys see things happening, and they might be sympathetic, or they might be resentful, self-centered, and self-pitying.
Things I learned that I didn't know: apparently there's a type of self-professed nice guy who uses niceness as a way of scoring. IE, a type A pretending to be a type D. And something I neglected to say, out of jealousy perhaps, is that some dashing, charming, sexy guys mught not be jerks.
At the URL I explain my uinderstanding of one part of the "bad choices" dynamic.
Carol, I have a confession: I think in the last couple of years Mr. B. and I have started to slip a little bit into the situation you describe. The way we're trying to dig our way out is through couples therapy, and me recognizing the danger, and trying to learn to distinguish between B3 and B4 (as Curiousgirl describes), and trying to learn to back off (e.g., when to say "this is going to get ugly, let's take a break now," and just walking away--which isn't easy for me). And, on his part, starting to realize where he's being NG2, and trying to learn to be a little bit more articulate--in a non-aggressive, non-defensive way--about when he's feeling kind of browbeaten.
I think part of our problem is the at-home dad/academic stressmonkey situation; it contributes to an imbalance, partly b/c I'm not really happy with my job (so I am more stressed and kinda resentful at being "trapped" in it b/c he's not working) and partly b/c, while he is, I think, mostly happy staying home, he's also not a born homemaker and, I think, a little at sea b/c he doesn't have a driving goal (the kind one often gets, if one is lucky, in a career or a good job), and the combination (imho) makes him a little more passive than is really healthy for the two of us.
whoops didn't mean to post twice before, HS doing its weirdness.
LJer ginmar had some excellent posts on the topic of nice guys topic which I can't find but I'm sure someone could pull them out again. Basically, guys who describe themselves as "nice guys" are immature, i.e. not really nice guys. They haven't yet engaged with enough women or their own sexuality to get out of the nice guy vs. bastard binarism that they use to define women's sexuality. I think that's not uncommon in a media culture where people - especially those who are taught about some of the potential pitfalls around sex - develop substantial ideas about sex and relationships that are pretty divorced from reality. I think the potential is there for that to be a good thing, particularly if the dominant culture of sexuality that surrounds you is less attractive than in enlightened urban areas. BUT the transition from de-identification with standard male heterosexuality (in its prosaically violent or market-romance forms) also results in a kind of egoism or closure in a different way, one where "nice guys" simply don't develop competencies in relating to others. Either something shakes them up and they get over themselves, or they turn into the bitter nice guy who complains on their blog about how they're not getting any.
I don't have too much to say about the taxonomy, except that it's useful to think about them in terms of related modes of behaviour rather than just types of people. and dorcasina's first comment is insightful on the relationality of these. one person's passivity is another person's accommodation, same with aggression/assertiveness. (or, in the case of the Bitch#4, one's being nice today will be passive tomorrow, all part of the adventure 
). sometimes, also, the dynamics that work in some areas (say, sex) are different from those around housework, or career, parenting, etc. Those are areas where the tensions become pretty complex, and your experiments in non-monogamy are interesting in that light (are there aspects of Mr.B's NGness that are a better fit in some areas than others).
I've always gotten on well with assertive women (as friends or professionally), and they're are almost always the ones I have any kind of sexual dynamic with. But there are different types of being assertive, and the stereotypes break down when you're dealing with real people who are strong or assertive in some areas/ways they're used to and not others (similarly, i can be passive/accommodating on some things, but very stubborn on stuff that's important to me). Even with long-term partners, I'd still get surprised at ways in which they or I show new vulnerabilities or areas of strength over time. The reason you get together with someone and why you stay with them can change as well.
I was a bit facetious in my first comment, but I think it's basically true. Being secure is kind of boring. I think those of us who love "Bitches" feed off the energy, even if it shows up as stress or conflict. Being with a B in flight opens new experiences and places you'd never get to being nice. Even during the most depressing relationship episodes I can remember, it's never occurred to me to start dating someone who wasn't a bitch, who was always reasonable, who never ruffled any feathers. That would be very boring, and I'm sure it would make me very boring. Like any relationship, I think what's nice is when you see how you complement each other.
The "insecure, passive-agressive misogynists" category is only the same as the NG#2 lashing out phase (it's possible to just be passive without the aggression). I think the division I meant would actually be replacing the shy category with the misogynistic one and recognising that people in any of the categories could be shy or not.
Danny, of course you're right; it is relational, and people are not really archetypes. Like, for instance, I actually hate confronting customer service people, and will usually hand it off to Mr. B. (and then stand around cringing because I think he is far too aggressive and accusatory with them). And yes, definitely the different men in my life have different combinations of these (and other) qualities, and as a result my own combinations tend to change--e.g., I cannot really imagine fighting with C., because his mode of dealing with the seeds of conflict is to pause for a minute, think about it, and then apologize immediately for his part in it and/or simply explain how he's feeling, which takes the wind right out of my sails.
Aha, I see, pigpuppet. Yeah, I was kind of conflating the p-a misogynist with the purely passive / weak guy, b/c I honestly think that the latter sooner or later turns into the former.
From the other side for the B's who are falling into bad patterns with their increasingly passive NGs: I think B-lovers tend to rely on our B's to cross boundaries for us. Yeah, it's kind of lame. But I think an interesting thing for B's to think about is whether the impulsive excess energy that might result in conflict can be directed somewhere that takes your NG with you. The goal is to shift the complacency of the NG, but we end up developing very good defense mechanisms against direct force (built up through your slips into #4ness). In some ways it doesn't matter where you shift them to or how, as long as they feel that sense of being taken out of themselves.
For the passive NGs, you already know we need to learn to get off our asses and get outside of ourselves. But that's easier said than done in the context of established relationships, right? Requires a conscious effort and IMHO even a little bit of the much maligned NG#1 romantic behaviour can be useful here, or at least that energy with the sickening cliches taken out.
Hm. So would you say insisting that you both need to get jobs and move very far away would count as redirecting that energy toward a mutual goal?
Just sayin'.
I cannot really imagine fighting with C., because his mode of dealing with the seeds of conflict is to pause for a minute, think about it, and then apologize immediately for his part in it and/or simply explain how he's feeling, which takes the wind right out of my sails.
Give it a year or two, and his charming expressions of how he's feeling will magically turn into defensiveness. (Am i too cynical? well let's just say i think it's important to remember how the temporal aspects of our relationships work. That's Kipnis' point, right?)
Come now, Danny, that's not fair. I'm perfectly aware that relationships change over time, obviously, but it's also possible that I'll learn (with both Mr. B. and C.) to be better at not putting people on the spot.
Hm. So would you say insisting that you both need to get jobs and move very far away would count as redirecting that energy toward a mutual goal?
Wow, you really are a bitch . I didn't mean a "mutual goal", because the discussion about the goal will fall into the same patterns it always has (at least, that's my experience). I mean your goal is to get him to "move", emotionally. And I think the best way to do that is to insist on doing something crazy and fun that he might be too boring to do.
You might be right (it's certainly true that the "job hunting" energy is falling into the predictable pattern, in some ways). I shall think about it.
And re. C., of course, you might be right about that too; otoh, the fact that our relationship is long-distance and I'm married surely mixes up the predictable pattern a bit. For instance, I wonder if some of the boundary issues that might be hard to live with day-to-day aren't actually a big advantage in the situation as it stands. Anyway, we shall see, but I admit I feel a bit defensive about predictions that constitute put-downs of my men...
Come now, Danny, that's not fair
OK, so I'm pushing a few things for the sake of argument, apologies. but there's a dynamic where the new is more exciting than the old, right? And I think the question a few people have asked here, that Kipnis asked very well, is how can the familiar be reinvigorated? That might be difficult when you've got outside invigorating forces at your disposal, as women like yourself tend to .
Yeah, boring was a bad choice of words. I just mean different levels of "centredness". No offence to Mr B. at all, who has shown himself to be very interesting and I think needs to be doing some guest posting, his comments are very good.
Indeed. Nothing worth doing is without its challenges.
I didn't really intend this thread to turn into a personal therapy session, though...
Great discussion with a lot of personal resonance. I was mainly a NG3 with some insecurities and resentments leading to occasional no.2 behaviors and traces of no.1 to try to compensate. Quite frankly the no.1 behavior creeped me out too, so I generally avoided them. I like to think after a couple decades of self-reflection I've strengthened my personality into a no.4. It's nice to read the comments and know I'm doing some things right. At least my wife says so too.
Speaking of which, she has no.4 elements. I love the word stressmonkey. I'll use it some day to try to de-stress her.
A big part of the attraction for me is her intelligence and strength. I may be a (recovered) shy guy, but I don't have much patience for a pushover or the willfully ignorant. I don't exactly like the 10eprcent unreasonableness, but I'm not always so great all the time either, you know. In general, as long as it doesn't reach the point of being a mean, no.2 bitch, we're cool.
I also think you nailed it with the insecurity as worse than the poverty. It took a long time for me to find a career. I'm not money-driven, but don't lack ambition either. Anyway, while I was underpaid and trying to pay off loans, I had very little money for dates or clothes or anything else. I felt very insecure about it, thus the elements of NG2. I was not meeting poor, academic or artistic types anymore, but lawyers and businesswomen who made a lot more money than me. The insecurity was definitely more of a problem than the money. If I'd been less insecure about it I'd have realized I got props for taking some risks and losing, but not giving up and eventually finding something I enjoy, even if it won't make me rich.
I think I'm with you, Ron O. Especially the recovered bit.
C's skillset is hard to acquire, but invaluable for certain personality types. It takes a long time to learn to be articulate and argue and at the same time not "fight back" as such. (The aim being not necessarily to win, after all, but to stop/defuse the fight).
Wonderful discussion as always, Dr. B. Sweetheart, PhD would be a much less interesting blog.
Good post, Dr. B. I'm a bitch-at-home married to a decent guy with (usually) the most even temper imaginable. Yes, I sometimes turn into a shrieking ball of stress when I'm on deadline and I suddenly realize that the house is a mess. I also sweat the small stuff way too often. On the other hand, I'm restless and therefore adventuresome and tons o'fun. I drag him places--mental, physical & in the sack--he'd probably never venture on his own, and therein lies the tradeoff for him. Or so I've surmised.
Fantastic post. It seems to me that at least for the NGs it should be accompanied with a timeline (e.g. NG1 - hopeless (or at least in need of mental deprogramming), NG2 15/1st relationship which ever comes second, NG3 18/3rd, NG4 20s/multiple) since I think that in most guys its a progression, but one in which some people get stuck at a stage and get behind schedule.
Being in a relationship with a B3or4 can do a lot to catylize this process, but probably won't be any kind of fun for the B.
I don't think that women need to learn as much from men since they seem capable of teaching each other about relationships earlier. I remember being 12 and seeing girls who were hyper best friends scream at each other, stop talking completely, then go back to being best friends and thinking "what the hell is THAT all about" and then a couple of years later thinking "ohhh!" accompanied by "oh man am I in trouble"
Actually, Wrye, the possible alternate title for the blog was not "Sweetheart Ph.D.," but "Pretty Nice Thoughts from a Pretty Nice Girl."
But I decided that was too long.
(Also, please allow me to point out just for the sake of clarity that the C. whose comment appears above is not the C. who I am dating, who signs himself--following my description of him before he really became my boyfriend--as "the Connoisseur.")
What about the kind of nice guy whose niceness originates in religious principle or otherwise possibly overly strict moral system. A lot of these guys are genuine; ie, there are not faking it I think. But I never hit it off with them really. Perhaps this is just NG#1, but I think there may be a discernable subphylum.
There's an unfortunate lack of symmetry in your categories that makes the sexes appear more different than they are. The flip side of nice guys would be nice girls, who would map right onto your male categories perfectly, and the flip side of bitches would be bastards, and again we can find guys who fit each of your descriptions, except with floppy genitalia. These are properties of personalities, not sexes--the only differences are in how society colors by sex the individuals who fall into each niche.
If I may, I would just like to recommend a sensible essay on (something close to) this topic, by bell hooks: "Seduced by Violence No More" in _Outlaw Culture_.
Oh, PZ, I by no means make any claim that my categories are all inclusive, or even symmetrical.
But I do think that the distinctions are someewhat gendered; for instance, I think that women who are difficult to live with are often responding to broad frustrations with sexism in ways that guys who are difficult to live with simply aren't.
PZ -- in Morris, MN it's going to be hard to find the leather / bondage lifestyle you were looking for, no matter how hard you look. I've heard that in Billings, Montana, you'll have a little better luck, though. (Of course, Minneapolis is closer).
The anger, lack of confidence and low self-esteem of financially unsuccessful men is structural and not just personal psychology. Some guys can beat it, some can't, but it's not just a matter of understanding the situation and thinking positively.
In the same way, the selfishness, bullying habits, and feeling of entitlement of successful men is structural. And even if he is not a really nice person, a successful man can do objectively nice things for a woman to make up for it, whereas an unsuccessful nice man can't.
Getting out of those structures isn't easy.
I don't think that it's symmetrical with successful women. I think that those rules are being written right now, and no one really knows what they are yet.
Agreed to both re. structure.
It's interesting, though, that you can see that w/r/t men who are broke, but not w/r/t women who end up in relationships with assholes. It's not so simple as chalking it up to "choice."
Trying to track all these acronyms and numbers is making my head hurt. Isn't a possible explanation for the original question that people are often attracted to things that aren't good for them? High-status, flashy narcissists of either gender?
People remember rejection for a long time. A lot of the guys who make the "nice guy" complaint are probably still fighting an old battle that didn't go their way. So maybe there's a good bit of whining going on there, and maybe if they tried a little harder they'd find that some of the women who rejected them in high school have wised up since then.
Still, it's hard not to see your overall analysis as equating niceness with weakness. Which might go a long way towards explaining the initial complaint.
Well, a broke, low-self-esteem guy who doesn't date is not harming anyone or doing himself any harm, and he's not really doing anything. He's just grumpily and whinily, perhaps passively, accepting his fate with regard to money and romance. The comparison, more or less, would be the woman getting paid 60% of what a man would for the same job. She usually can't do anything to change that.
Coupling up with someone is a choice or an act. I don't say that women "deserve it", etc., etc., but there are alternatives: a different guy, a woman, or nobody. One of the things to be said (maybe not by me or by any B or C guy) is that women should learn, and help each other learn, to recognize those guys.
As I've said, one of the last straws for the likes of me is when the harm done by "type A nice guys" (the ones I call jerks) is lumped in with everything else any man does, and "Men" are blamed. This does happen and has happened to me, even if it isn't the official line of any group. So maybe what I'm saying is a bit self-centered, etc., but it's not just imaginary.
Despite the fact that I'm still trying to make sense of the categorizations and sub-categorizations that have come out in this discussion, this is a great entry. At risk of sounding narcissistic, let me related my own experiences:
I've been a late bloomer with respect to virtually everything I've ever done or accomplished (with the exception of certain educational things), especially in the area of interpersonal relationships. I was once one of those nice guys who complained a lot, but I like to think that I've gotten over that stage and progressed on to something better.
I like to think I'm an NG4, but I feel like I exhibit too many of the behaviors of NG2. I can be very passive in dealing with the women in my life; in my current relationship, I pretty much let her set the tone. She seems to like it that way, but now I'm not so sure because our relationship seems to be playing out in ways I don't like. I tend to be very diplomatic in how I handle conflict, and though that has normally served me quite well, I have a feeling that I'm going to need to bring things to a head, which could get very ugly. I don't like the potential for this ugliness, but the alternative seems to be me not saying anything and then thinking about some Very Bad Choices.
I guess in trying to be an NG, I've failed more often than I care to admit, and perhaps some emotional stress via conflict will be a necessary corrective so that I can learn from the whole thing and not make the same mistakes again.
At least I hope that's a positive I can take from the current situation.
Flamingbanjo, no: the equation between "nice" and "weak" is done by weak/passive/manipulative men. The point women are constantly making is that "weak/passive/maniuplative" is NOT nice, no matter what self-designated "nice guys" say.
John, I'm starting to see why Nancy got frustrated. You say that the underemployed guy isn't doing anyone any harm; neither is the woman who is with an abusive jerk. And to repatedly make THE biggest point about women who date assholes into "then they turn around and lump all men together" is incredibly narcissistic and self-involved. As if the worst thing about abusive guys is that they make other men look bad. No: the worst thing about abusive guys is that they're abusive. It isn't about you. Get over it.
Linnaeus, the alternative isn't saying nothing or ugliness; the alternative is figuring out how to say your piece in a way that is neither accusatory nor defensive, i.e., just being straight up about it.
My DH calls me a "stress monster* sometimes, so I guess that pegs me, huh? He's not a "nice guy" at all, though - more of a B3, really.
My DH calls me a "stress monster* sometimes, so I guess that pegs me, huh? He's not a "nice guy" at all, though - more of a B3, really.
Interesting conversation -
Like a lot of these "men are like," "women are like" conversations it's a bit simplistic though. I look at myself and can't fit myself neatly into these categories, nor can I fit my husband in either - but then, we're weird.
I think smart guys prefer "bitchy" women because really what we're saying by that word is strong, self-confident women. Wouldn't you prefer that to a doormat? Maybe I'm being naive.
We're all flat-out bitchy sometimes, aren't we? What the fuck is wrong with that? Part of being human. If a guy can't handle that, he can shove it up his a-hole. I guess that's what Dr. B said at the end - we're not as bad as we think we are. I think we're often too hard on ourselves. We're allowed to be bitchy sometimes. That's where I am with this.
My husband isn't a pure #4 NG, any more than I'm a pure #4 B. He's a jerk on occasion - because he's human. (actually he's a lot more like the #4 B - can get cranky when streseed - does it have to be gender-specific?) The thing is, he apologizes and feels bad about it later. Same with me.
I have to say though that #1 NG is creepily true. My first serious BF was like that. And WHAT a controlling jerk he turned out to be.
I used to hang out with him and his male buddies - go drinking etc. - and they used to get so slammed that they forgot there was a "girl" with them and they'd start complaining about their GFs. "I got that bitch flowers, perfume, took her out to dinner, blah blah blah and it add up to blah blah blah and she STILL won't go to bed with me." BOY was that an insight to me.
From that day on, I went dutch on EVERY date, and if my income was substantially higher than the guy's I insisted on paying. Some guys, that was the last I saw of them. My husband thought it showed character - which is why he is my husband.
Guess I'm a big-B after all ...
Well, again, this isn't intended as a "men are like X, women are like Y" post at all. It's about SOME men and SOME women. That's why I said up front that I'm not claiming that this is definitive, in any way.
The woman dating the jerk is doing herself harm. And the unsuccessful guy isn't necessarily voluntarily unsuccessful. He's very seldom a guy who had a choice between success and failure and decided on success. Either he's unambitious or he's failed. (I don't mean the guy living off his wife while pretending to be trying to get a job; he is doing harm.)
It's not THE biggest point about women who date jerks, or about the jerks. It's ONE of the points about this general kind of argument (not about those particular women, or about the jerky guys). I just explained my motive for being as stubborn as I am -- why I feel the way I do about the way the argument has developed.
I did go through several years of we-talk-you-listen feminism, and I while it was happening I accepted that model. Afterwards I had a bad feeling. I didn't become politically anti-feminist on any issue, but I became less open and sympathetic to sexual politics. I've mostly avoided the politics of sex and gender for a couple of decades, but on that one thread a week or so ago I let my guard down.
Which is the particular thing you remember me saying that you found most unacceptable? Maybe at some point I said something I wouldn't defend now.
The woman dating the jerk is doing herself harm. And the unsuccessful guy isn't necessarily voluntarily unsuccessful. He's very seldom a guy who had a choice between success and failure and decided on success. Either he's unambitious or he's failed. (I don't mean the guy living off his wife while pretending to be trying to get a job; he is doing harm.)
It's not THE biggest point about women who date jerks, or about the jerks. It's ONE of the points about this general kind of argument (not about those particular women, or about the jerky guys). I just explained my motive for being as stubborn as I am -- why I feel the way I do about the way the argument has developed.
I did go through several years of we-talk-you-listen feminism, and I while it was happening I accepted that model. Afterwards I had a bad feeling. I didn't become politically anti-feminist on any issue, but I became less open and sympathetic to sexual politics. I've mostly avoided the politics of sex and gender for a couple of decades, but on that one thread a week or so ago I let my guard down.
Which is the particular thing you remember me saying that you found most unacceptable? Maybe at some point I said something I wouldn't defend now.
The woman dating the jerk is doing herself harm. And the unsuccessful guy isn't necessarily voluntarily unsuccessful. He's very seldom a guy who had a choice between success and failure and decided on success. Either he's unambitious or he's failed. (I don't mean the guy living off his wife while pretending to be trying to get a job; he is doing harm.)
It's not THE biggest point about women who date jerks, or about the jerks. It's ONE of the points about this general kind of argument (not about those particular women, or about the jerky guys). I just explained my motive for being as stubborn as I am -- why I feel the way I do about the way the argument has developed.
I did go through several years of we-talk-you-listen feminism, and I while it was happening I accepted that model. Afterwards I had a bad feeling. I didn't become politically anti-feminist on any issue, but I became less open and sympathetic to sexual politics. I've mostly avoided the politics of sex and gender for a couple of decades, but on that one thread a week or so ago I let my guard down.
Which is the particular thing you remember me saying that you found most unacceptable? Maybe at some point I said something I wouldn't defend now.
The woman dating the jerk is doing herself harm. That isn't your problem, or your business.
And the unsuccessful guy isn't necessarily voluntarily unsuccessful. Ugh. The woman dating an asshole isn't necessarily voluntarily dating an asshole, either. In many cases, probably most, she DOESN'T KNOW he's an asshole until it's too late. Why, for god's sake, do you have to construct these dichotomies where guys are just hapless victims and women are voluntary victims? Give it a rest.
And again: the fact that women who have been treated like crap turn around and develop hostile attitudes about men honeslty isn't even ONE of the points to be taken from the situation. It's NOT YOUR PROBLEM. It doesn't damage you if some women dislike men for good reason. Women are not obligated to like you. And women who dislike men, by and large, have absolutely no power to harm you. If you choose to get your feelings hurt because of how someone else feels, that's your problem--not theirs.
There is no one particular thing you said; the things I found irritating I responded to in the first thread over at Majikthise's. What I am finding irritating now is that you are INSISTING on making this conversation about you and your perceived victimization by women who have dated assholes and now feel wary about men, when that is so NOT THE POINT.
If you're not an asshole, then women bitching about assholes are not bitching about you. It's that simple.
Why, for god's sake, do you have to construct these dichotomies where guys are just hapless victims and women are voluntary victims?
Because they were events of two completely different kinds. Unemployed women do not choose to be unemployed either. I would say the same about men who had a pattern of getting into harmful relationships, if they were the topic. (I do not defend men who live off their lives and pretend to be looking for jobs).
"The woman dating the jerk is doing herself harm. That isn't your problem, or your business."
I am always being asked to be concerned with this kind of situation. We're having an discussion of a this kind of situation. One of the many things that it makes to sense to say about this situation is what I have said. It isn't the whole truth of it.
If you choose to get your feelings hurt because of how someone else feels, that's your problem--not theirs.
????? If I dislike women because of my experiences and they choose to feel resentful about that, is that their problem? I'm being told that I shouldn't feel that resentment (and should not be a type B misogynist), and that's a good point.
There is an overall discussion here, and perhaps I broadened the topic beyond the original point, but that kind of thing happens on blogs. To me it's an additional, related thing that's worth talking about. Not the whole story.
Hola John Emerson, I think you're on the wrong blog if you've "mostly avoided the politics of sex and gender for the last couple of decades", and I don't think the last week's work will get you up to speed. You could ask nicely for an extension.
I found it interesting that people have felt uncomfortable with the preceived "sex typing" going on in the post, when to me it's really obvious that to be male/female and exhibit certain behaviour is read very differently by people within friendships/relationships and by the public at large (and by ourselves). It's not only that the desire for us "all to be human" is kind of weird and untrue, isn't part of the identification and fun in a post like this about the way thinking it in a gendered way opens up more interesting and provocative questions?
[sorry about the couch session earlier, i've been reading melanie klein today, and you know, where better to give countertransference a test drive - :7]
I am always being asked to be concerned with this kind of situation.
"Always"?? Really? Because I've never once had someone ask me to be concerned about someone else's relationship.
If what you mean, however, is the broader understanding that people shouldn't just ignore it when their loved ones are in danger, then yes. One might perhaps suggest that you focus your energies about people who "choose" to be in abusive relationships on the person who is "choosing" to be abusive, rather than on the victim.
Danny, no problem re. the public therapy; as always, talking to you about this stuff is useful and thought-provoking, and you have many good insights 
While things were happening with my sister, that's what I did. I tried to figure out how to help her out. Eventually thing worked out, though she'll never gain back what she lost.]
After it was over with, I thought about the other stuff, as I also did about some of the other cases I knew of once the crisis was over. You don't have to choose one at the expense of the other. As far as I know, my sister thought that what I said was more helpful than harmful.
We're not talking about an immediate crisis where dealing with the abuser is what you need to do. This is a very general, non-crisis discussion with no particular victim in sight. So I just wanted to add my thing to the various other things that are being talked about.
I like the topography you've mapped out here, Dr. B., especially as I see myself trying to metamorphose from NG2 through NG3 to NG4, like a larval cockroach molting from one instar to the next.
(Of course, that's self-diagnosis: I might actually reside somewhere on the other, undescribed asshole scale.)
Anyway, as a guy who's married 16 years to someone who at her best oscillates between B3 and B4,* I think there's something to be said for looking more closely at the passive-aggressive "broken man" concept. Like a few commenters here, I've spent much of my adult life learning how to fight with a lover, and I''ve definitely swallowed feelings more often than I ought have.
But there is a wonderful feeling to be found when I ignore my own minor preferences and let Becky have what she wants, whether her preferences are minor or major. we're doing our kitchen this summer, and I've given up a couple things without much argument - like the greenhouse window I thought about - simply because it's an opportunity to make sure Becky has what she wants.
And it's not one-sided. I'm the gardener in the family, and I veto planmts she talks about buying because I have A Design In Mind. Besides, Becky is in most ways extraordinarily generous. In fact, sometimes I keep my opinions to myself precisely because I know she'll go through acute gymnastics to try to incorporate my desires, however fleeting, into her plans for the month. And I know you mentioned something very like this in your "Mexican food" comment, but sometimes it works on more crucial tissues as well.
I think people notice the "broken man" because he acts counter to stereotype. And there are certainly some out there: I've been one. But it ain't always passivity. Sometimes it's love. I'd hate for the love to get missed in a well-intended purge of passivity.
* Damn! I sunk my battleship!
Chris, I agree: there's a difference between simply letting stuff go and being passive in a bad way; the difference, I think, lies in the motives of the person doing it, and I'd say that the former is a mark of NG4, not NG2. Simply doing it, as such, is one thing; doing it b/c one is afraid, or wants "credit," or out of some swallowed resentment is quite another. One might think of it as the difference between a gift freely given and a grudging, silent concession of a point that may not have needed to be conceded in the first place.
And I'm glad you pointed out the difference, b/c I think that was what I was trying to get at in objecting to Danny's assumption that C's non-fightyness will necessarily and inevitably revert to defensiveness.
I would comment that you’re not seriously in the game if you haven’t achieved competence and capacity in what you care about – not to be mistaken for what the world cares about.
When you have achieved a level of mastery in your chosen realm, you have power and you move alone. Even others in your realm are completely different in their own way. You’re alone. Even in a pack you stand out as essentially alone.
And raw power is beautiful and incredibly seductive in both men and women.
Last summer I was in a kayak fifty feet from a breaching whale. One moment I was alone on an empty sea. And then suddenly -- a wall of shimmering water rising in front of me. The smell of her breath spraying on me. Her huge eye watching and drinking in the entire world as She rolled in the sky and then slipped back beneath the silent blue water.
For a moment we were eye to eye, awareness to awareness, sentient species acknowledging sentient species. We saluted. We parted.
When you have power, you can’t hide it and you don’t need to fake it in any other realm of your life. People who fake it are intimidated by you and can never be partners in any serious undertaking. They simply aren’t on your level, and because of that, they’ll project all manner of shadow on you. People who have it, in any realm, understand. They already own most of their own projections. They don’t need to use you or anything. They can be partners.
Real "power" fights fair because real competence and capacity can never lose at anything that matters.
Finally -- the world is at least half mad. Anybody who fails to be aware of that is part of the problem. Anyone who isn’t consequently angry is simply a contributing actor in a Potemkin village ... while the lights around us are going out. Life’s too short to waste much time on them. Just be polite where possible. But remember we’re a tribal species, and like healthy wolves we move in packs. And we give little quarter to the sick dogs.
While I haven’t needed to write the word before today, I find upon consideration that I do not know a woman I trust who is not a bitch by your definition and example.
/e
Interesting post. It got me thinking about something, though: most of the posters seem to be either nice guys who are in relationships with bitchy women or bitchy women in relationships with nice guys. I won't go into the details, but I'm a nice girl in a relationship with a guy who might be called an asshole by a lot of people. The thing is, he's not really very different from many bitchy women I know (and respect): he has certain standards that he wants met, he's willing to push for what he thinks is important, he won't put up with bullshit or stupidity, etc. He's also a very "alpha male" type (for lack of a better characterization). I'm the calm, more even-keeled one.
What I wonder, though, is how other people might perceive our relationship. That is, do people look at me and think, "Why does she put up with that asshole?" There's the implication that . But is she? Maybe it's just that these two types complement each other, regardless of which sex fits into which category.
Of course, I don't think my husband is an asshole at all, just as (I assume) Dr. B's husband doesn't really think she's a bitch. It just struck me as interesting, that there seems to be this implication that for a woman to be with a jerk is somehow dangerous, but that for a man to be with a bitch is fine. Seems to be a bit of a double standard.
Oops. That was supposed to say "...the implication that 'The woman dating the jerk is doing herself harm'." Where did it go?
One might think of it as the difference between a gift freely given and a grudging, silent concession of a point that may not have needed to be conceded in the first place.
I think what I was trying to say, rather than C. will necessarily revert from non-fightyness into defensiveness, is that in the heat of the moment we sometimes read behaviours in particular ways, and that may or may not be related to whether the behaviour is 'objectively' defensive or not, but more reflects our own logic within the relationship (and, say, whether you're B3 or B4 that day). I'm searching for a Mr. B style physics metaphor about the relativity of it but can't find one. I identified with Chris' distinction too, but to me it doesn't completely support the difference you're trying to point out above, because at the end of the day Chris (and C., and I) are the text, and you're the reader, and we know how that game goes...
I like the different commenters who come in through the day.
Only read a few comments so far, but I'd tend to think that the answer to the question about whether same-sex relationships show the same patters as not-same-sex relationships is "not really, not anymore than the variation between people would explain". This is the second environment in which I've run into this topic (the other being someone I know who is reading a book called Why Men Love Bitches). The funny thing is, both the material in the book and the conversation here are hilariously similar to the claptrap about "nice guys", usually spouted off by a man whose reached his limit with NOT being seen as a sex object yet again. Empirically, at least, nice guys do finish last, get put in the Friend Zone, etc, because so many guys say the same thing; it sounds like there's are regularly ocurring patterns for women as well.
I look forward to reading the rest of the comments, and those at Majickthise, and anyone else writing good stuff about it.
Comment number 2: You know, there are a hell of a lot of males who were raised to treat a woman a certain way, which overlaps quite a lot with NG#1's description. I suspect it's the attitude, the body language that makes the difference, if any, clear.
danny, I don't know if you're referring to my earlier comments, since I used the word "human" a few times - also suggested that my husband is a bit like B#4, and that these roles may not always be gender-specific.
If so, don't get me wrong - I don't want to stop talking about gender! Gender is fascinating. That's why we're here on Dr. B's blog, right? At least one reason, anyway ...
But maybe that's the point, that we do see behavior differently when a guy does it than when a woman does it. Maybe we shouldn't in some circumstances. For example I think women do a real head-job on ourselves (and I do it too) with a lot of sturm and drang about when we lost our temper and acted bitchy. Do guys do that? Maybe. I don't know. I don't think so though, at least not as much.
I think it's normal to be "bitchy" sometimes, in the very non-positive meaning of that term - because people have a right to be less than perfect. That's what I meant about being "human" - in the sense that humans are imperfect, not in the sense of being human/gender neutral as opposed to male/female.
I'm not saying don't control yourself ever - as adults we do need to control our emotions as best we can, because other people have a right not to be drawn into our angst - but if you do lose it, you are not by definition an evil person. This is especially so in the context of the family, where it is natural for us to be more "ourselves." And appropriate for our families to recognize that. And us to recognize that about them. And also appropriate to apologize later, humbly and contritely. And appropriate to accept a heartfelt apology, or even a gritted-teeth apology.
As long as we don't go too far down that road, of course. Bitchy most of the time is the same as being abusive. But once in a while? Forgive yourself. Get over yourself.
That's why guys like bitchy women - because we're ALL bitchy women.
danny, I was referring to your post of 9:19, I see that we cross-posted.
la lecturess, it's often bitterness at being rejected for the umpteenth billion time ("you're like a brother"; "but, we're so close, that would be weird"; "let's just be friends"; "you're so nice, I can't understand why you're single" -- I can go at this all night, I've heard 'em all), not necessarily narcissism or hostility. Funny though, that now that you've pointed it out, bitterness REALLY can sound so much like/ lead into hostility.
Interesting post. Glad you raised the point about this dynamic in same-sex relationships, because obviously, it is slightly different. I think this story is similar enough to overcome the problematic 'women are/men are' aspects of your presentation.
From my experience: I'm definitely NG#4, married 12 years to B4. I dated a bit before we met. And one after another, all the girls who chased me expressed their interest in similar ways: You're like my last boyfriend, only...(some version of Not as crazy). What they meant, I think, was that girls are socialized to crave a partner who is strong, fearless, and protective. Many if not all of these girls had experienced NG#1 presenting himself as strong, fearless and protective, up until turning into a scary asshole with entitlement issues.
While it is true that I have...anger management issues...and speak truth to power fearlessly when that is what's required, I never yell or throw things or hit. A lot of young women who think of themselves as straight, from my sampling, are willing to go wherever they have to (including into the women's room with their date) to get that feeling of being adored and cared for, as people, by someone who is Not Nice but not actually dangerous.
I noticed recently, in my continuing survey of straight women (now from a strictly scientific perspective, no hands), that the ones who are really interested in me are paired up with striving, ambitious male partners who they feel do not understand them. Somehow talking to me at the PTA makes them feel understood and seen for who they are inside. Or so I'm told.
I wonder how gay men, and their complex relations with one another, see the nice guy/bitch dynamic.
flamingbanjo, I think you're right that old battles die hard (I still have to watch myself around some people), but in my experience (and those of friends I've discussed this with), one the girl has turned you down for being a nice guy, that's it, it's over, the best that can ever develop there is a healthy frienship with a subtext of some frustration.
I agree with PZ that the taxonomy is incomplete and would like to see an effort at a more complete taxonomy in the near future.
There is definitely an ontogeny going on, as someone upstream astutely noted. People, as they age and mature, go through different phases. They learn about the various types/phases of the other (or preferred) sex as they grow and gain experience. Young women are more likely to fall for macho "bad boys", but as the time passes, they get to realize that all that chest-beating and huffing and puffing is just a cover-up for male insecurity which can become violent if a woman starts asserting herself in a relationship. NG#1 is just a slick version of the macho insecure guy likely to turn into a wife-abuser.
Thus, in high school, nice guys and bitches do not get much play, as macho-types go for wallflowers and vice versa. Later in life, it reverses as guys gain confidence and become NG#4 and women become bitches - assertive smart women who use their brains, thus toungues, and we love them for that. See, related, a political dimension of this argument. Bad boys and wallflower girls get lost on the sidelines once the mating game becomes serious - their cover is busted.
Still, not everyone goes through all the steps, neither starting with the same behavior not ending with a same behavior. I am really interested in earlier causes of differences. What makes a guy start out as a "bad boy" vs. an NG#2 or 3, for instance, and likewise for girls. Is it, as Lakoff and Ducat would agree, due mainly to the family dynamics at home while growing up, e.g., the way father and mother treat each other? Mark O'Connor's book "The Good Father" has many good examples of such dynamics and how they affect the kids. Or is it something that comes later, e.g., in school? How much physical atractiveness (or lack of it) affects the way one behaves while courting and dating?
Dr. B, regarding the sub-debate with John Emerson, it's not like you can just walk away from someone so cleanly if they want to be friends with you. It just ain't easy to cut someone off. And yes, there are guys who do get asked to listen, to comfort, to just be there, BECAUSE they are nice guys. You don't have to believe it, but it's true, and that's the kind of guy who, in my admittedly anecdotal experience, voices sentiments similar to Mr. Emerson's. Lord knows I've had to listen to anything and everything, from abusive relationships to eating disorders to being fired to... Sometimes you can divorce yourself from it, but just as often you are emotionally invested in a person, in a way that isn't necessarily healthy but is there.
And a bit of levity for those who've made it this far:
The Ladder Theory.
It's brutal, shows men's sometimes darker side, and funny as all get out.
Only NG#4 and B#4 are self-confident. All other types, included those not listed in the post, are afraid of the other sex and attempt to cover up the fear in different ways.
B, you just described my marriage (#4 in each category). With the additional challenge that I like to think aloud and my husband likes to have all his points lined up, with footnotes, before he opens his mouth; and when I get angry I flip out, swear viciously, and immediately cool off, whereas he smolders. Very NG/Bitch dynamic.
A few of the reasons why it isn't pure voluntary choice for a woman in abusive relationships to simply walk away:
1. If she's married, it can be costly and socially damaging to get a divorce.
2. If she's married and unemployed, it may be very difficult to get employment and live separately.
3. If she is not married to her abuser, she may have no legal rights to alimony and therefore no "start up" money in getting a new life without the abuser.
4. She may (quite reasonably) fear a lack of social support after her separation - that family and friends will not believe that she was abused and/or think she was to blame for the abuse.
5. If she has children with her abuser, she may (quite reasonably) fear not being able to adequately provide for her children without her abuser's income.
6. If she has children with her abuser, she may (quite reasonably) fear losing custody to her abuser - who may very well abuse the children also.
7. If she leaves her abuser, she may fear for her safety and her life. (I don't have the statistics handy, but I do remember reading that most women who are killed by their abusers are killed right after they've left the relationship.)
And mind you, I just rattled these off from the top of my head. So I think, just as there are outside forces that affect the unemployed man previously discussed, there are also outside forces which affect women in abusive relationships. To ignore these societal, legal, and economic pressures means never fully addressing the problem of domestic violence.
Thought I might mention a much overlooked category: nice guys who have no complaints at all.
Totally unrelated note: My girlfriend sometimes lovingly (and not so lovingly) refers to me as her little stressball. I shall have to tell her about "stressmonkey."
OOh, I think the "ladder theory" thing is just awful, I've seen it before.
But re. guys getting resentful over being the shoulder to cry on: again, I do not see why this is a "problem" for the guy. It's a much, much bigger problem for the woman, and hey, if you can help out a friend by being a support in a time of need, why is that a bad thing? And if it becomes a hassle, b/c people who are emotionally needy can indeed become a hassle, why expand it to form some blanket theory about "women" or "some women" or whatever? If so-and-so always ends up in the position of rescuer, surely that says more about so-and-so than it does about the people he/she thinks they're "rescuing."
Former Jose: In the case of my sister, we faced every single one of those problems, including kidnapping the children and death threats. It was a nightmare.
What I have been trying to say is about the point of choice at the beginning of relationships.
Everything I say seems to be folded into a preexisting argument which I was not part of, but which included guys who said things sort of like what I have said.
I actually read most of what you've said on others thread, and I felt that part about beginning relationships had been pretty well discussed.
I believe a number of people pointed out that it isn't possible a lot of the time to look at two guys and say, "Aha! THAT guy will be abusive, but THAT guy won't." Same way with guys who rape.
That may or may not have been the case with your sister. I don't know her, you do. Which is why I wasn't talking specifically about your sister, since I don't know.
If so-and-so always ends up in the position of rescuer, surely that says more about so-and-so than it does about the people he/she thinks they're "rescuing."
Yes, it says that they're a horrible, unsexy "nice guy", like I used to be.
The case is even harder when the victim is someone who had rejected you in favor of the dashing romantic guy -- after having complained about him to you at great length, leading you to believe that because she actually did like you (up to a point) and not him (except romantically), that you might have a chance.
This is getting way too confessional, but I've been around the block a few times in my fucked-up way, and I thought that I was included within the group whose opinions might be regarded as worth at least paying attention to and treating with some respect.
One woman on one of the other threads said that she had a sister who had had a long string of relationships with abusive guys. She said that she had tried unsuccessfully to talk to her sister. She believed that her sister should look at why that was happening. She did not believe that it was impossible to tell. (My brother-in-law radiated a bullying, manipulative charm.)
Whoever it was on the other thread who said that about her sister was one of the very few, and the only woman AFAIK, who admitted that I might have some kind of point, or who defended me I was being accused of wanting promiscuous women to be murdered. After a certain point I was running on anger, and that still hasn't dissipated entirely.
It really does seem that we're in the we-talk-you-listen zone, and after living there for awhile quite some time ago, I promised myself never to go back there again. I cheated by avoiding the politics of sex and gender entirely for a decade or two, but I've slipped up several times over the last few weeks, and Humpty Dumpty has fallen.
Re. "choice at the beginning." HIndsight is 20/20. You can't *know* at the beginning how someone will turn out. You say you knew, and yes, you turned out to be right in the end; but if you had turned out to be wrong, then you'd have been wrong.
It doesn't say "they're a horrible unsexy nice guy," although the fact that you say it does is very revealing. It may say that they have a rescuer complex, but imho the "it says they're a horrible unsexy nice guy" statement demonstrates a certain kind of resentment and self-pity that's inappropriate.
Also the last bit, about "opinions might be regarded as at least paying attention to" etc. In what sense am I not respecting your opinions? I've responded to about everything you've said.
John, no one here has said you "want promiscuous women to be murdered." It's a different thread. A different set of commenters.
If so-and-so always ends up in the position of rescuer, surely that says more about so-and-so than it does about the people he/she thinks they're "rescuing."
That does not seem to me as if it were intended to say anything good about the rescuer. The scare quotes on "rescuer" seem sarcastic. I responded sarcastically. You really do seem to have it in for these guys.
I never called myself a rescuer AFAIK. Several times I was sympathetic and friendly to women in the aftermath.
Also the last bit, about "opinions might be regarded as at least paying attention to" etc. In what sense am I not respecting your opinions? I've responded to about everything you've said.
There's always been more than disagreement -- there's always been (not just from you) an air of accusation, and the idea that not only was I wrong, but that somehow I'd said something that was tired, old, over the line, horrible, etc. Involved, in part, with identifying me with different guys who said something similiar but not the same.
John Emerson, dude, drop the self-pitying thing. Unbecoming. Your arguments work better without it. What is it, you want women to feel sorry for you?
I don't "have it in" for anyone; but I am suspicious of people who see themselves as rescuers. Because there ends up being a need for others to be victims, and it is also a pretty self-serving role to play. If you don't think of yourself as a rescuer, then it doesn't apply; I was more responding to agm in that comment. You don't need to take it on yourself.
I think if you are hearing accusation, you are attributing it where it is not there. I think your last few comments are demonstrating a willful blindness to some things, which I am trying to point out, but there isn't any need to be defensive about it, and I do think you are being unnecessarily defensive, and I do think that that is a problem that is common. Clearly you are also attributing to me attitudes that others hold (e.g., the things said in the other threads).
John Emerson, dude, drop the self-pitying thing. Unbecoming. Your arguments work better without it. What is it, you want women to feel sorry for you?
That's the generic cliche response. I've read it several times in the last week or so, though this is the first time it was addressed to me.
As this argument has progressed, I've become confessional in order to try to make people understand why I think the way I do. When women do that, it's OK. In fact, when men don't do that, it's one more bad thing about them.
John, the Bitch shoots straight. Don't confuse her with others.
JP, you say: "Most of the posters seem to be either nice guys who are in relationships with bitchy women or bitchy women in relationships with nice guys. I won't go into the details, but I'm a nice girl in a relationship with a guy who might be called an asshole by a lot of people. The thing is, he's not really very different from many bitchy women I know (and respect): he has certain standards that he wants met, he's willing to push for what he thinks is important, he won't put up with bullshit or stupidity, etc. He's also a very 'alpha male' type (for lack of a better characterization). I'm the calm, more even-keeled one.
"... There seems to be this implication that for a woman to be with a jerk is somehow dangerous, but that for a man to be with a bitch is fine. Seems to be a bit of a double standard."
Maybe in certain settings -- such as this blog -- there's a lot of support for "bitchy" women, JP. But in mainstream American society, I think the alpha male gets societal approval and all the accompanying perks of same, which is definitely not true of "bitches."
JE,
I don't think anyone has disrespected you. Certainly that hasn't been my intention when addressing some of the points you've brought up. I think some of the people here, including myself, disagree with you - but I don't think our disagreement is at all the same as disrespecting you or saying "we talk, you listen."
Nothing wrong with being confessional, John. The self-pity thing happens in your tone. You don't need it. You may have felt driven to it under some of the relentless fire you've drawn, but you're better without it, is all I'm saying. I just noticed it in two recent posts, is all. I've got to thank you for keeping that Majikthise thread going. (Old Nancy really had it in for you. I often found myself agreeing with you and her. Here with the Bitch, things work slightly more civilized-like, because the Bitch jumps in with sweet reason.) You're like the scratchy bit of sand that makes the pearl grow. Keep scratching.
Well, I should take a break. I can easily be found if someone wants to say more.
One bitch/nice guy dynamic: bitches who like men who might be passive enough to be led/messed around, but there's a limit -- and when the bitch crosses it, and meets with solid stone/backlash, it's a big turn-on.)
Heh, Adam, that is so not me
I think it's a Spencer Tracy thing. Maybe you like Clark Gable.
No, I like Cary Grant.
I'm mostly Bitch#3 but revert to Bitch#4 when I'm under a lot of stress. I have an alternate theory on how we interact with NG#4, though. In my case NG#4 is one of a very few people who I allow to see me being vulnerable. As a result he, ironically enough, sees me as considerably less bitchy than many other people assume. I have a friend who calls me either "bad-ass" or "rockstar" depending on the mood he's in, and the "bad-ass" comment sent my husband into fits of laughter. His comment - "he's never seem you stressing yourself out over some tiny little thing that nobody else would even worry about".
I think the advantage of the Bitch#3 or Bitch#4 + NG#4 relationship is that since both parties are actually pretty strong characters, they are able to trade off who NEEDS to be strong in any given situation (eg who has to deal with the difficult situation with the customer service phone line vs who has to deal with sending the food back when the waiter delivers the wrong order). Usually if one person starts to fall to pieces due to being a stressmonkey the other person is able to step in and temporarily pick up the slack.
On another note, NG#1 creeps me out too, but I've never dated one so can't really analyse them. NG#2, which I agree is really code for "manipulative passive/agressive jerk", I have dated only once and that was enough to put me off for life. This one invented a fake medical condition which he "needed" my support to get through when I tried to break up with him. IMHO, NG#2 is like a vampire, he will suck all the life force right out of you while clinging to your leg like a barnacle then call you EEEVIIL if you leave him. NG#3 I actually have quite a bit of sympathy for. I would't date one, but I've had a few as friends. With the guidance and support of a good Bitch#3 or #4 and a supportive group of friends in general these guys can actually grow into NG#4 over time. Bitch#1 is your classic high school queen bee and often grows up to be your classic anti-feminist woman (I'm looking at you Ann Coulter). Personally, I think Bitch#1 and NG#2 deserve each other.
I must admit that the "women love jerks" lament is one of my biggest pet peeves, and is what brought out my inner bitch on the other thread. I get especially annoyed when "jerk" is defined as "confident outgoing guy" because my husband is one, my Dad is one and a good percentage of my male friends are also. I don't like seeing them described as jerks just because they're not shy.
John, please note - this is not a flame directed at you. In fact, most of this comment has nothing to do with you. I have no interest in continuing the argument from the other thread. I just want to talk to Dr. B., cause she's just the kind of Bitch I love.
PS Anyone on this thread who's never seen www.heartlessbitches.com should really take a look. They do a better job of skewering both the "nice guys" and the princessy girls than anyone else I've ever seen. And Ginmar's LJ page is http://www.livejournal.com/users/ginmar/. You should be able to find her "nice guy" rants from there.
Back when the world was young I thought I was one of these crapped-upon nice guys. Over and over I'd offer my shoulder for crying on, and I'd never let on while I was doing it that I thought I was collecting chits which I expected to redeem for everlasting love.
I ended up getting out of it by accident: I got so busy with stuff I was interested in: work, politics, soccer, that my conversations went from these "this is step 1 of a 39 step plan to win your love but I'll never say it outright" sicko conversations, to ones that were actually fun, complete, and interesting in and of themselves. And at that point I could start relating to women about our mutual interests, which resulted in fun dates, marriage, kids, dogs, cats, and goldfish crumbs everywhere. Which is what I wanted all along.
Yes, the advantage of NG4 is that you can either be vulnerable, or he can understand that the bitchiness is often a fairly thin cover for actual vulnerability, which saves you having to admit it
I don't think, though, that NG3 needs to grow into NG4. I honestly think they're just different types--shy guys can be quite confident and secure, just kind of quiet in social situations, which is fine.
B, I don't think NG#3 NEEDS to grow into #4 either. Many of them want to overcome their shyness, though, which is understandable since we live in a society that often doed not look kindly upon shy people. I just think that if NG#3 is looking to get over his shyness a bitchy friend who will drag him kicking and screaming out of his shell may be just what he needs.
On a side note, I'd forgotten just how many guys interpret female confidence and assertiveness as bitchiness until I ventured into the blogosphere. Some of the responses my very no-bullshit Scottish personality has attracted from the guys have been illuminating to say the least.
Really? Cary Grant? He was always too Captain-of-the-football-team for me.. except when he's endearingly flusterable in "Bringing up Baby" where La Kate was definitely playing the bitch to his niceguy. Even in the Philadelphia story, I went for Jimmy.
But Gregory Peck, now.. that's a different story.
I hate people and want nothing to do with them at all. What category does that put me into?
Oh yeah, and I'm male.
After reading the entry and all of the comments, it feels so much easier being in a same-sex relationship. I guess we may not be typical, but we're the female versions of NG4. Both easy to get along with. No arguing. We say please and thank you to each other daily for simple things.
I think I'm too lazy for what seems like the hard work of a "bitch". I appreciate them online for argument's sake, but in my home, it would drive me nuts. I like peace & quiet. Well, as much peace & quiet as you get with an African Grey yammering all day. But, she means well.
I've never understood the enjoyment of bitchiness, even though by some of my posts, some people probably see me as such.
Have I missed any other same-sex commenters? I don't want to misrepresent my brothers/sisters, as I've seen the nice/bitchy dynamic in some of their relationships. I'm just not the forgive & forget type, so it's best I just not get into it with anyone in my home.
Mr. Emerson, if you're ever in H-town, there's a drink on me. Though our wonderful hostess doesn't get it, haveing been there, I totally feel ya.
It doesn't say "they're a horrible unsexy nice guy," although the fact that you say it does is very revealing. It may say that they have a rescuer complex, but imho the "it says they're a horrible unsexy nice guy" statement demonstrates a certain kind of resentment and self-pity that's inappropriate.
Dr. B, there are lots of guys who've had enough experiences that this pattern seems like a valid description to them. Why do you feel that the opinion, independently developed by many guys, is "inappropriate" for them to hold? It seems uncharacteristic of you to belittle someone else's experiences this way.
Granted, I'm only 25, but I've had girls make it clear by their behavior that what they meant by "you're a nice guy" was "I have no interest in dating you, but that guy over there with the car and the body and the money...". I've had girls call me the night before a first date to say "I don't really want to see anyone right now" and run into them at the restaurant on a date the next night. And I have no problem with that because, though it's a blatant slap in the face, it means that I didn't have whatever it took to catch that girl's attention. I certainly never felt I had any right to someone's affection (and by way of admitting the subtext, affection here includes but is not limited to sex), though there were many times I wished that I could figure out what I needed to do, needed to become, to be found desirable. However, it wasn't until I'd been in grad school a bit that I'd grown into the sort of person that can attract another person. All of which sounds like lj-style ranting, but it's by way of explanation of why I am arguing that it's a crock of shit to claim that anyone who says "girls don't want nice guys" is fundamentally motivated by resentment and self-pity. Odds are yes, they feel those things on some level, as well as some bitterness and loneliness, but those are the results, not causes. As Gore Vidal is oft quoted, "Whenever a friend succeeds, a little something in me dies." spiritrover is exactly right about what it takes to get out of this, to avoid having a little something die as your friends hook up and get married, but it doesn't make it a less valid place in life to be.
But re. guys getting resentful over being the shoulder to cry on: again, I do not see why this is a "problem" for the guy. It's a much, much bigger problem for the woman, and hey, if you can help out a friend by being a support in a time of need, why is that a bad thing? And if it becomes a hassle, b/c people who are emotionally needy can indeed become a hassle, why expand it to form some blanket theory about "women" or "some women" or whatever? If so-and-so always ends up in the position of rescuer, surely that says more about so-and-so than it does about the people he/she thinks they're "rescuing."
It is a bad thing. It's reinforcement that you are a friend, you are not and never will be a romance. Frienship with a healthy side of frustration is not an easy thing to live with, and eventually it can destroy the friendship. Your statement, about being a good friend is quite true if you are already friends. If you're at the stage where it's undetermined whether you're a friend or a romance, you WILL be classified as a friend. After seeing this happen way too many times, I made an informal rule that no way, I'm not the shoulder to cry on unless we are already friends.
The rescuer complex stuff, wow, that's just an amusing amount of presumption as to what's going on in my or other nice guys' heads.
i have enjoyed following this thread considerably. i think i’ve learned a lot. thank you all.
B.PhD, thank you for your incredibly perceptive opening notes and your careful stewardship, trusted by so many here.
~~~
sentimentality, in both good guys and good “princessy” gals, is pretense. and all forms of lying are off-putting. most who are sentimental are unaware, which means they are successfully lying to themselves, too.
just as a certain kind of “naive” invites “betrayal” ... a syrupy kind of “romantic” sentimentalism properly invites hostility. the unaware invite awakening and often this requires a bit of a kick in the shins.
even children are not sentimental .. they have an innate sense of fairness and realize you can’t really negotiate with the evil witch in the forest who wants to cook children ... she has to be pushed into the oven herself. and the evil witch with the red shoes can’t be sent to charm school and redeemed, she has to be made to wear her own red shoes and dance in the fire until she is dead.
there’s a subtle point to be made here and i’m likely to do little more than limn the issue.
aware adults know that life lives on life. i can’t eat dirt to live. i have to eat something that was recently alive. and in just living i have to displace something else – as beautiful as me -- that would have lived where i am living.
the only decent way to live is to recognize the sacredness of that and take my place responsibly. a woman doesn’t want a man to be unaware that the meal they are sharing was just that morning the living embodiment of a child’s stuffed pet. but she doesn’t want to be reminded of the harsh reality of life in every moment, either.
there’s a balance here and finding it is a living task, a never ending task ... which is why they call it “the razor’s edge.”
both a woman and a man want to feel that their partner shares with them a consciousness of the earthiness of life ... but in living it (both its light and its horrible life-living-on-life shadows) can simultaneously experience the sacredness and spirit of something above that. beyond that.
this better suggests the term “carried away” than most sentimentalized notions about it. to be pulled into passion by the acts of our partner is to be pulled into a spiritual place. the word “passion” comes from the sacred and originally meant “suffering.” in a very real sense, to share a liminal space with a woman (both of us in passion) is to share a kind of incandescent glorious suffering in the world.
a meal is always an opportunity for communion, the mutual sharing of the earth’s living skin. we eat the incarnate Goddess in the world to live. just because we now find our food in sterile stores should not ever blind us to the horrors of factory farming – the price we pay – consciously or unconsciously-- to have 6.2 billion members of our species in the world.
a woman wants you to know that (consciously), but not be broken by it or express it inappropriately in every moment. maybe communion is a suitable substitute word for the west’s overly-sentimentalized words “romance” and “romantic.”
a woman, or the feminine in men and women, seeks to share deep awareness of the world in a sacralized communion. the presence of soft candle light, wild flowers, and the rituals of dressing for the occasion are simply metaphors acknowledged and “lived out” in honor of the moment. in honor of life. in honor of shared awareness of the infinite in a moment.
~~~
and i would offer that there is an important distinction between the terms shy and introverted.
i am a myers-briggs infp, an introverted intuitive feeler perceiver. which means that my experience of the world is dominated by intuitions and feelings. as an introvert, i find solace and food in silence and solitude. my idea of joy is weeks alone in the wilderness. extroverts, however, are replenished in the presence of community. extroverts seek contact.
but i am not shy and have no reticence where my clear interests are disturbed or threatened. i have thin skin when i feel that someone is abusing power or taking advantage of anyone around me. in the presence of abusive power i can’t be still or withdrawn. i have invested my life in removing money changers from the temple.
/e
I don't know about Gregory Peck. How much fun is that stolid decency? I'm with the Cary Granters myself. Today, what with the Brad Pitts, Johnny Deps and Jude Laws, where are the Cary Grants? Ain't not one grown-up man among them, all be boy men.
Evert, I have one name for you. Clive Owen. A real honest to God grown-up, and sexy as hell too. Apparently he's in the running to be the new Bond, too.
Though I must admit I like the pretty boys, but then again I am British.
ehj2, that was amazing. I just wish I was smart enough to understand any of it. seriously, that was beautiful.
Dr. B, as a man who considers himself a Genuinely Nice Guy (but with Passive Tendencies), let me tell you why I wouldn't be able to live with a Bitchy Woman of the Fourth Kind: That's my mother. And her form of bitchiness drove me crazy when I was a kid.
You identified the problem when you mentioned inflexibility. I have a hunch that you're rather like my mother: Determined to not be the kind of person who avoids conflict, you seek conflict. Perhaps I'm wrong, so I'll rephrase: My mother, Bitch Type Four, seeks conflict because she so abhors avoiding conflict.
Dr. B, you describe a Genuinely Nice Guy as the type who doesn't feel compelled to complain that "you always want to go to chick flicks." Well, what if a guy says that insincerely, his way of teasing you? Are you willing to laugh and not let it bother you? If you're like my mom, the answer is no. And that's sad. It means your bitchy in an unlikeable way.
I married an easygoing woman. She's easygoing with me and our son, that is. But if you're a repairman who fucked up the garage door installation? Watch out. Sure, if I do something wrong she will throw the wrath of god at me. But she gives me the benefit of the doubt. She's bitchy in public relationships, but not private ones. The exact opposite of my mom, at least on that score.
As a Bitchy Type Four, I think you might tend to mistake Genuinely Nice Guys for Passive/Weak Nice Guys. Using myself as an example, you would conclude, correctly, that I'm shy, and you would conclude, incorrectly, that I'm a wimp because I'm easygoing in private romantic relationships. But I'm not a doormat in these relationships, and I'm not so easygoing with co-workers and strangers. I'm just not sure you would recognize that.
And if you and I dated, I would break up with you by telling you to take a goddam chill pill and be bitchy to that lousy waiter instead of taking it out on me.
Have I misconstrued you?
There is a special subclass of nice guy for which I harbor nothing but schadenfreude.
Nice Guy: Women don't want to date me because I'm a nice guy! Blah blah blah! Not getting any! Life is unfair!
Woman he's talking to: [flirts with Nice Guy]
Nice Guy: [ignores advances and/or subtly moves his chair away] [Keeps ranting.]
Some categories of nice guys who have no complaints at all:
1. “romantic” demonstrative in nice, thoughtful way
2. passive, accommodating, non-pushy, considerate, but not necessarily weak
3. aggressive and pushy, but quick to back off
4. shy but nice when you get to know them
5. thoughtless but willing to learn, trainable
6. neurotic but works on self
7. all-around decent chap
Quick response to agm: in a nutshell, the reason that "I'm a horrible unsexy nice guy" is inappropriate is because of what someone said upthread; it implies that the *reason* you are being a shoulder to cry on is to collect chits for undying love. As you yourself admit, you're not doing it out of friendship; you're doing it out of romantic interest. And when, predictably, the woman who is NOT INTERESTED IN YOU is offered friendship, and treats you like a friend, you take it as a referendum on being "a horrible unsexy nice guy" rather than the very simple, "i tried to manipulate a woman who wasn't interested in me romantically into changing her mind by making myself into her doormat."
It has nothing to do with being "nice," and it has nothing to do with "what women want." It has to do with you, and your insecurity, and your refusal to take "no" for an answer.
There. Is that clear enough? I'm sorry to be blunt and harsh, but as it happens (1) I'm in a hurry to get somewhere, and (2) I have talked more than one young male friend, but one in particular (who also referred to that "ladder" thing, ugh), through this particular little trap and into having somewhat clearer ideas about how to deal with women, so I'm not completely unfamiliar with the particular self-pity fest of this way of thinking.
"Evert, I have one name for you. Clive Owen."
Britgirl, I'm with you on Clive Owen. A man. So is George Clooney. But neither of them are Cary Grants. I can't think of a single celeb today, who like Cary Grant, is the absolute Perfect Gracious Grownup Date.
The women celebs aren't that grown-up either. Funny, in the old days, the boy men were the exception to the rule, Brandon de Wilde, etc. and kind of a joke. Now the men are the exception to the rule, and the adolescents aren't a joke anymore. Is pop culture more infantilized than before?
Re. Cary Grant; he has a mischiveousness to him that belies the "captain of the football team" thing.
And do not diss Johnny Depp or Jude Law. Yum.
Re. "I remind you of your mother"--you can poke around on the site to find out if I can handle a joke; but you are of course aware that projecting your problems with your mother onto any woman, especially on short acquaintance, is almost certainly just that: projection.
"Is pop culture more infantilized than before?"
If pop culture was to get any more infantilized the celebrities would be wearing diapers. Some of them already look like they dress in Osh Kosh (Justin Timberlake, I'm looking at you).
I can't say I would really want a Gracious Grown-Up Date though. Maybe I'm not old enough yet. If you did want such a thing Denzel Washington might fit the bill, though. I do agree that female celebrities are looking a bit larval these days too. The only one I really find sexy is Angelina Jolie.
Ouch! From now on call me ...
The Projectionist
Angelina Jolie is so sexy I'd break my thing off in a door for her.
it implies that the *reason* you are being a shoulder to cry on is to collect chits for undying love. As you yourself admit, you're not doing it out of friendship; you're doing it out of romantic interest.
Bull. I drew a line between friendship and sex/romance:
"After seeing this happen way too many times, I made an informal rule that no way, I'm not the shoulder to cry on unless we are already friends."
If you meant "you" as in "all y'all", it sure didn't sound like it. If you meant "you" as in me specifically, you just are wrong. I admit I once was one of the "nice guys" (a mix of types 2 and 3), and eventually I did become bitter, and took lots of flak for being bitter, but I was never motivated by resentment or self-pity. I was motivated to learn what the hell I was doing wrong, which took until a little into grad school. Nonetheless, I'm arguing on behalf of genuinely nice guys in general who are getting tarred and feathered here and shouldn't be. What's your motivation? I wish I understood, but I honestly don't know, nor where your vehemence has come from towards someone who is honestly disagreeing with you instead of simply shutting up and capitulating.
**********
I'm not completely unfamiliar with the particular self-pity fest of this way of thinking.
Is self-pity now only allowed to host of the blog?
**********
In any case, I'll check in later this afternoon, but I very well may be done here, because much past this point we'll just be talking past each other. Shame that this can't be discussed as if the opinion of everyone involved was important.
Angelina Jolie's lower lip looks like someone's butt, right down to the crack in the middle. I am sorry. Ew.
Since when am I self-pitying? I'm at least as hard on myself as I am on anyone else.
And re. "genuinely nice guys"--you'll notice that that was a category in the initial post. I most certainly *do* distinguish between genuinely nice guys and men who put themselves in the doormat position out of a desire to be rewarded with undying love; that was part of the point of the post. The "you" was a rhetorical, not a specific you (since I don't know you from Adam, personally)--I did say I was in a hurry.
For the record, I think there's a clear difference between being a *friendly* and sympathetic ear, and repeatedly being a shoulder-to-cry-on-because-you-have-ulterior-
motives;
I understand (and know) that a lot of guys react to having done the latter by swearing off ever doing the former again, and I'm sure that that's a useful developmental phase (I realize that sounds condescending, and I apologize for being too rushed to fiddle with the tone of it). But what I would say is that from a position of strength and self-confidence, one *can* be a sympathetic shoulder. The point is to know what one's *own* limits are, and not get drawn into the self-sacrificial martyr role. My (ongoing) problem and impatience with men who conflate the martyr role with "being a nice guy" is that being a martyr is not nice. It's more about one's own inability to draw healthy boundaries than it is about one's attractiveness (although, not having healthy boundaries is unattractive, yes) or one's desireability or anything else. And that is why women (who rightly feel slightly uncomfortable around men who don't have a clear sense of boundaries, no matter how "nice" they are) tend to steer clear of it.
But as long as we're on the subject, it's statements like this--
Shame that this can't be discussed as if the opinion of everyone involved was important.
--that come across as self-pitying and narcissistic. Come on. That's the whine of an adolescent; if you think I'm missing something important in what you're saying, you can simply say so. The fact that I have a different perspective on something you are saying than you do yourself does not mean that your opinion is unimportant; it means I disagree with you.
Not knowing the difference is part of the boundary issue. I am entitled to hold different opinions than you do; I am a different person than you. Implying that the only way I can show respect for your opinions--which I am showing by responding to what you are saying--is by agreeing with you comes across as a control move, not a genuine engagement with the argument at hand.
(The rhetorical Adam, not the specific Adam who is commenting in this thread. I can distinguish between different commenters.)
Bitches come in categories, too. Some categories of OK bitches:
1. bickerers, like to complain and chip away
2. easily outraged, ranters, everything and everybody so unfair, you see what the Dems/Reps are up to now?
3. sarcastic snarks
4. fighters, like to pick a fight because they like a good fight
5. demanding, persnickety, never-satisfied, high-maintenance, I wanted peonies, not roses; won’t go out to dinner if you're gonna wear a baseball cap
6. lecturers, pointers out of faults, know-it-alls, running commentary on how they want to be fucked
Question for self-acknowledging bitches: which bitch are you? Some OK bitches can have various bits of OK bitchhood in them. Some bitches only get bitchy when they're under stress, others are just naturally bitchy. Bitches can be OK because they've got other things going for them, or because a particular guy gets off on that particular brand/mix of bitchiness. I'm particularly partial to bitches (2) and (6).
"Angelina Jolie's lower lip looks like someone's butt, right down to the crack in the middle. I am sorry. Ew."
Listen, Dr. Bitch, you don't have a dick, so you don't have a direct het connection to what's sexy about Angelina, so you know not whereof you speak. A lower lip that looks like a butt, what can be sexier than that? Don't you find butts sexy? I'll lay off Depp if you lay off Angelina.
Evert, I'm a woman. There's nothing het-specific about Ms. Jolie.
Um, I mean there's nothing het-specific about being attracted to Ms. Jolie. Bit of a Freudian slip there, sorry!
So, what would be the mirror of this, or would be corrolary?
'Cause I'm not a nice guy, and Dr. ER's not a bitch -- although I can be sweet and she can be bitchy.
I think she's a Nice Girl and I'm a Jerk. But we're both strong, headstrong, successful in our lines of work, and tolerant of each other's excesses.
This, however, has been a challenged for this ol' rednecky guy: "it's the insecurity--not the lack of money itself."
But then she earns it 'cause she spent more time in preparation -- the doctorate compared to my lil (late-in-life) master's. So, I got over it, mostly.
If you're at the stage where it's undetermined whether you're a friend or a romance, you WILL be classified as a friend. After seeing this happen way too many times, I made an informal rule that no way, I'm not the shoulder to cry on unless we are already friends.
You just made clear what's been bothering me about this whole discussion.
You know, aside from the rampant stereotyping and sexism.
It's the casting of friendship as something to settle for, with reluctance, if it turns out to be certain you aren't going to get laid.
I mean, I do understand it. I've been there. A bunch. But friendship is pretty damn good, and you can get to the point where sexual attraction to a friend is a bonus rather than a source of frustration and regret.
(It's also not an irrevocable category. Becky and I were friends for three years before we got together. And we've been together perhaps longer than some commenters here have been alive.)
Britgirl, things get het-specific when a man thinks, how much do I want to stick my dick into Angelina? This is not a question you as a woman can struggle with. Yes, I know that hets can appreciate the sexiness of same sex people that they may not want to fuck, or may want to fuck. But there's a private conversation between a man and his dick no woman gets to overhear or understand, I maintain -- which is different from the private conversation between a woman and her clit/pussy, which I don't think I could understand. OMG, I think I'm landing in Women's Studies territory, a place where I always get my dick cut off. Still, I think dick/men conversations are different from pussy/women conversations. Although it may be just my dick talking.
I think Dr. B said well what I tried to say upthread - it's not disrespect to disagree with someone. And I don't understand why it's being interpreted that way. It seems to imply: "Why are you not surrendering to my obviously superior logic?"
ER,
I was thinking earlier about the corrolaries too. Would be interesting to discuss. One thought I had: Could one type of "Nice Girl" - as in a stereotype, not actually nice girls - be related to the pressure on girls to be sacrificing always-on-good-behavior "good girls" growing up? I had a lot of such pressure, and I definitely have passive-aggressive tendencies which I think might have in part resulted from my upbringing (and which, of course, I'm working to change).
Or, shorter: There's definitely the flip side, but is it truly a mirror or are there differences? I dunno.
Why do so many people think Angelina Jolie is sexy? Now, Kate Winslet -- mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm! -- now, she's sexy. Built like a woman, not like a boy with tits.
I've been married to a B#4 for more than 30 years, and I tolerate the 20% insane bitch because of the 80% saint.
There are days when any excuse to leave the house is a good one.
I think there is a bit of psychology many women may miss. Does this ring true with anyone?
"Women tend to see the world as a series of details and if the details are handled everything will be ok."
"Men tend to see the world as a big picture and if the big issues are ok then the details will work themselves out."
I think this is the source of much conflict. Correct? Wrong?
Gotta go, my bride has directed my attention to a storm window detail that she sees as urgent.
Tom-e-lee,
Apparently Einstein said that when he got married, they agreed that he would take care of the big things, and she of the little things, and the funny thing is, he found he never had to take care of anything.
last night in bed
Me: I only get irritated with you because I love you.
She (slightly irritated): I don't get that. My mother says the same thing. I get irriated with you because sometimes you're really irritating.
Us: LOL!
I always seem to come into fascinating threads as they're about to play out..
I'd like the men who are "nice guys" to read a startling confession: I was once a "nice" girl. You know the type--a somewhat homely woman with not the greatest social skills, but she's secretly funny and smart and she wants to be your best friend. You enjoy the friendship; you feel very close to her, as a matter of fact, but not attracted to her. All at once, she comes out of left field confessing that she loves you and wants to be more than friends; or, you meet a woman with whom you want to have a romantic relationship, and that gets the ball rolling. You reject her as kindly as possible, because you genuinely like her and don't want to hurt her. She goes all drippy and weeps and lays a guilt trip on you about how you used her and why doesn't anyone love her and she is ugly and will be alone forever. You get the picture--it's very unpleasant.
I did this over and over and over for a decade-entering friendships with completely false intentions. I was the user--I wanted to manipulate men into being my boyfriend by stealth. During this time I never did anything to improve my appearance or my social skills; self pity was easier and so appealing. I loved obsessing about my boyfriends-to-be, and imagining us entwined in passionate embraces. I was completely celibate during this period. No shit, I didn't have sex for 10 years.
After I had ruined a particularly great friendship with a male roommate by going drippy on him, I had a stunning revelation: people are not puppets or pawns, and they have the right to want who they want, and if the other person didn't feel that way, it has to be respected. That I didn't have the right to make people who clearly were not attracted to me to be my lovers. That all of these men were unique human beings, and I never really appreciated them for who they were.
I got off of my self-pitying high horse and started going to a hair stylist, exercising, getting advice on dressing in a way that was flattering, I also went back to school, started making female friends (that had fallen by the wayside), and initiated the difficult task of dating and getting to know men without the bad faith. I even started fucking, although it was more scary than pleasurable at first. I got hurt, sure, but I could walk away feeling clean and done with men who did that to me.
I think reading Jane Austen may have been one of the revelatory factors. Austen's protagonists are spirited young women, at the height of their sexuality and attractions to the opposite sex. Much has been made of the oppresiveness of the marriage market in Austen's' novels, and how women were often viewed as walking dowries. I however think that her main theme is the cruelty of manipulating people emotionally. Flirts lead on characters and then mock them or betray them. Characters harshly judge others based on superficial things, only finding out later their value and trustworthness. Austen is about awakening to the humanity of others, and valuing people for who they truly are.
So "nice guys," take note. Look at your female friend; look into her soul. You may not think you need a sister, but you do. You also need a lover, but you ain't going to get one by trying to push your sister to feel a different way about you. Start approaching attractive women with good faith, and take rejection with grace; someday you'll be doing it to others, and you should know how it feels. Most of all, start doing things that make you feel good about yourself, and stop trying to get that feeling from women. Women were not put on earth to tell you that your're sexy, funny, a great fuck, etc. If you get those kind of compliments, great, but nobody owes them to you. Earn them.
Angelina doesn't put wind in my sails. I think her lips look weird too. BUT I respect the hell out her and her work as a UN goodwill ambassador. She also seems like a (good) bitch. As an actress, eh...
Tom-e-lee said (and there's probably a good way to make a block quote, but I'm a haloscan newbie):
""Women tend to see the world as a series of details and if the details are handled everything will be ok."
"Men tend to see the world as a big picture and if the big issues are ok then the details will work themselves out."
I think this is the source of much conflict. Correct? Wrong?"
I enjoyed your comment. I think you are right that this is the source of much conflict. It's one of the passive-aggressive rationalizations men fall into to not do their fair share of the work around the house, which I observe is THE source of conflict in my house, and I suspect many others. And it works out quite neatly, for the men at least, because, big picture, the house gets cleaned up. Adam Ash's funny follow-up about Mr. & Mrs. Einstein is dead-on.
Big picture, I'm trying to do better to see what needs doing around the house (like picking up, sweeping, changing catboxes, that stuff), more proactively. We run a lot smoother here when I do closer to my full half of the housework, I bet other relationships would benefit similarly.
"It's the casting of friendship as something to settle for, with reluctance, if it turns out to be certain you aren't going to get laid."
Two things on this. Firstly, anyone who thinks that his relationship with a woman has somehow failed because it's "just" a friendship is probably not a very nice guy. I can see being dissapointed, sure, but friendship is a valuable thing in and of itself. A frienship is something to be treasured. I have male friends whom I love very much. It's not a consolation prize. The fact that this needs to be pointed out is rather depressing.
Second thing. Every serious relationship I've ever had, including my marriage (8 years last month and counting) has started as "just" a friendship. Women don't put men into arbitary boxes labelled "friend" and "lover" and never let them out again. For me, someone who isn't a friend first is never going to be a lover, at least not in a serious way.
Angelina doesn't put wind in my sails. I think her lips look weird too.
The benefit of being as wise and mature a man as I am is that I can, at long last, look past the superficial matter of appearance to the point where I would in no way reject a liaison with Ms. Jolie based solely on the shape of her lips.
That thing with the vial of Thornton blood might be a deal-breaker, though.
My first post here, so be gentle (yeah, riiiight). Haven't even read the zillion posts in this thread yet, but I would guess that the good Dr B. calls it right with the "corollary" premise.
Ms. Perfect Woman would be a pure bitch # 3 - strong, confident, taking no shit from the world, but totally laid back in her personal relations (specifically, ideally, with me), and never, ever "high maintenance" or "high strung." Even if I were being an asshole (which, with Ms. Perfect Woman, of course I'd never be), she would wittily and gently observe that fact.
Alas and alack, in the real world, personalities can't be scored up like characters in an RPG, and the traits that make a woman a #3 pretty much inevitably spill over into a degree of #4-ness. (On occasion, in the real world, I even manage to be an asshole.)
So, I - and, I would guess, a lot of us - enjoy the 80 percent #3, and grit our teeth for the unavoidable 20 percent of #4.
As an aside, since I see her come up in even a quick skim of this thread, what IS the big deal about Angelina Jolie? Sure she's easy on the eye, but that's not exactly a rare trait among heavily-promoted H'wood actresses. Why all the hype?
Butts are sexy--on the back end where they belong. Not on someone's face.
As to the "what kind of bitch"--I won't go out to dinner with a man wearing a baseball cap, no, not really. I mean, I would do it, but inside the entire time I would be thinking that there would be no second dinner.
Cary Grant did not wear baseball caps to dinner.
RE Angelina, there's something feral about her. I don't know how else to put it. She looks like someone you could actually have a drink and a conversation with without wanting to gouge your own brain out with a rusty nail after the first five minutes. Maybe it's just me, but I find stupidity and blandness very, very boring, and very unsexy. And most Hollywood types are so bland it's hard to tell them apart.
Bingo, BritGirlSF. I wonder if the tendency to pigeonhole people in one's life isn't more of a, well, pigeonhole-separator than is the NiceGirl/Guy and Bitch/Jerk dichotomy.
When I was back in my old hometown 30-some years ago, it was the same woman -- a friend -- who
a/ told me the other women at the bar were having trouble with me because they couldn't decide if I was "a butch" or "a femme" (long hair, tight pants, never skirts, no makeup, some jewelry, wafflestompers) and it bothered her too. (I told her to tell them to classify me as "hippie," which seemed to make her feel better at least.)
b/ Initiated a discussion about sex with "friends." She said something about how "some people" (which, again, might have meant her) made it a rule never to have sex with friends. Call me naive, but I blurted the truth: that it hadn't occurred to me to have sex with anyone other than friends.
It's true, I'm sure I would love hanging out with Angelina Jolie, and I certainly don't think she's unattractive. She has beautiful eyes. But the lip that everyone thinks is so sexy, ick.
Ron, shall we label the friends/lovers dichotomy Sexism-Generated Binary #256? There are so many of them that I'm starting to lose count.
Dr B, it's not the lips, it's the personality. To be perfectly blunt she seems like she'd be good in bed, and then fun to hang out with afterwards too, which is always a winning combination.
OK, I think that's quite enough of revealing my sexual fantasies for one day.
Ah, but sometimes, BritGirl, you can get very lucky and get both simultaneously. In which case, my advise is to clasp hands, hit the ground running, and go as long and as far as you can, you crazy kids.
Let me add this, though; friendship can be abused too, even in situations where sex isn't an issue, and I think folks may be forgetting that. Friendship dynamics are relationship dynamics as well, after all.
Someone who is using you as a disposable shoulder to cry on (and nothing else) is not your friend to begin with; and allowing yourself to be used as an emotional kotex is an act of weakness, as Dr. B points out. Why settle for a friendship that isn't really friendship?
With some people, it will simply never be (as Sarah Vowell puts it) muffin day. An NG4 can recognize it and move along (unleashing their inner bastard if necessary), while an NG2 or 3 could really get stuck, if not careful.
Good lord, I'm a slow typist. that's in reference to the 11.14 BritGirl post, way up there.
And for the Record, having seen Sky Captain, Angelina is the reason God invented jodphurs.
For the record, though, I just don't get the whole focus on lips thing. When folks tell me mine are kissable, I'm completely baffled--not complaining, mind you, but baffled as to what constitutes that quality.
Angelina is feral all right. She looks like she likes to fuck outdoors, always a deal-breaker for me, like in the mud or the rain. Plus of course she looks like she'd be a tiger on meth in bed. Dr B, you're just lip-blind. Or maybe there's some deep childhood trauma that led to your spooky ability to see butts in lips.
wrye, you're missing the point a bit. I'm married - I have already found the pefect combination of friend and lover. And just FYI, I'n not a kid, and neither is he.
About the "disposable shoulder to sry on" thing, I'm not buying that. I've seen the situation that NG2 and NG 1 complain about many times, and in most cases the woman in that situation really is offering them genuine friendship. She just isn't offering them a romantic relationship. The NG may choose to reject that if he wishes, but that doesn't mean the offer of friendship from the woman's side wasn't genuine.
Damn, I just can't type at all today. I'm getting yelled at by an angry MRA on another site so I'm all distracted, sorry.
Um, I wasn't referring to "you", you. I was referring to "you kids reading this blog."
Oh wait, I see you're distracted, that's okay then.
And similarly, I wasn't talking about women per se, there, but everyday friends. And if that pattern can occur with my male friends, then logically this might explain a little bit of spillover. In general, I agree, we've all but beaten the original NG 1/2 complaining myth to a richly deserved death.
Now what is this MRA? Tell it to stop bothering you.
I think I am equal parts B3 and B4. And The Boyfriend is definitely GNG. I find that I often make the major decisions but I get mad when he wont take a stand or clearly articulate an opinion. I used to just be snide about this. However, because he is NG4 and not NG3, I take a step back and we have a conversation about what it is I really want.
But, and I only read 75 % of the comments so excuse me if this has been brought up, the whole Academic Woman and B3 And B4 connection is interesting to me. And This has become an issue in my relationship. I think the connection lies in the necessity to make clear decisions/sacrifices etc. The Boyfriend will be moving from a city he loves to join me in my Graduate School endeavors. Would anyone but a NG4 do that?
Oops, sorry again wyre, my encounter with the angry dude seems to have shorted out my irony meter. I think this was the part that blew the final fuse. I am quoting him RE :Feminists
"She certainly is a female chauvanist and what we in the House Opposite refer to as a "Woman-Firster" (Not to mention a devout misandrist) but to me it's just another flavor of feminist. "This is what women do, and we chould be honored and put to the head of the line because of it, because, well, we're women, darn it all!""
And THAT, my friend, is an MRA.
Yeah, feminism is all about how we hate men and want to make them our slaves. Damnit, who leaked the memo?
They somehow divined it by listening to the voice of the Feminist Oversoul, apparently.
I'm still trying to figure out why "House Opposite" is capitalised. It sounds almost Shakesperian. Are we the Montagues or the Capulets?
Wow, for some reason his description both makes no sense *and* reminds me of Neapolitan ice cream. Must be the use of "flavours".
Yes, Dr. B is correct, feminism is really female domination with tweed instead of fetwear.
I always though it was about domination via smacking recalcitrant men over the head with a very large Feminism 101 textbook. Clearly I was misled.
Adam, re: a long way back:
2,3,4 & 6
Yeah, feminism is all about how we hate men and want to make them our slaves. Damnit, who leaked the memo?
Um, sorry, that was me. Please don't kick me out of the men's auxiliary. I forgot to look at the cc: list before hitting "reply." You know how us men are with attention to detail.
Say, did anyone over at Majikthise point out that "nice" was originally an insult? It seems kind of germaine, somehow...
Chris, you'll simply have to be demoted from administrative work to laboring in the kitchen.
There are of course lots and lots of people who find reason to find all sorts of imperfections in the people out there. It is indeed incredibly fun and certainly we are all bozos on this bus so quite true.
Anyone male or female who wants companionship has to make ventures, this means some ego pain and awkwardness, but if you're just starting b looking at people it's not so big a deal.
I don't know anyone who comes into things without all sorts of misperceptions and odd ideas, a long long list of irritating qualities. this is pretty much all things not just personal life things.
I've also noticed as a boss, plus as someone who intervenes in odd places that lots of these thinngs can be ignored and lots more people can change their behaviors and express *their* frustrations if you've developed a reasonably good set of techniques for resolving these things, in other words if you'd have a few good working friendships or relationships.
So it's all very painful into the twenties, but beyond that time a certain hardness in regards to oneself and to others should lead to the end of these annoying and rather stupid cliches which have you divide the human race into 4 or 5 types per gender.
Chris, you'll simply have to be demoted from administrative work to laboring in the kitchen.
Cool! Tabasco on everything!
Works for me, I like spicy.
Curiousgirl,
It seems most bitches are bitches in more ways than one.
Adam,
1-3.
And I'm there on both Clive Owen and Denzel Washington. The opening credits of Much Ado About Nothing are the closest I get to porn. Denzel and Robert Sean Leonard in leather, YUM ...
Silentspring, preach it. That's exactly what I had to do/am doing (yet not expressing it as clearly).
I'm one of those women who repeatedly rejected intelligent, sympathetic nice guys who were interested in me in favor of "dangerous and sexy men." So I suppose you could consider me a bitch who used my "agency" to fuck over nice men.
I lived the first 20 years of my life with a dangerous and sexy man for a father. He trained me well and I chose another dangerous and sexy man to live with as a young adult.
BUT, did I choose my abuser?
I am quite sure that I did NOT look at those muscular arms and think, "Those will be perfect for driving his fist into my face a few months from now!"
I am positive that I did NOT admire his quick mind and think, "I hope one day he uses his twisted logic to berate me morning, noon and night."
I know for sure I did NOT look at his tenancity and think, "I hope he uses that stick-to-itiveness to stalk me for months after I leave him!"
I would argue that I did NOT use my "agency" to "choose" my abuser. I did what came naturally for me.
Eventually, I learned to take my keen sensibilities to the moods of a man, my tendency to please and my general all-around niceness and apply it to an honest-to-god #4 Nice Guy.
It took a hell of a lot of work by myself and several awesome women to change my behavior. Anyone who thinks that providing a sympathetic shoulder for a women in that position should have been sufficient really has no clue about the dynamics of abuse.
What everyone has been saying on all these threads to those so-called Nice Guys cannot be said enough:
It. Is. Not. About. You.
I had a lot more to get over than you guys do. Take the time. Do the work. Learn from your past. Learn from the extraordinary women who hang out here. And move on.
Live is a hell of a lot more fun when you do. Trust me.
Angelina Jolie is attractive beyond words, not only because of the biological traits that are indicative of health and firtility, but because she kicks a lot of ass.
I married a very strong, beautiful woman who has the same attitute towards conflict as i do. that attitud is: "I can't be bothered..."
We've got way too much enjoying each other, our kids, our dog, etc. etc. to do to be leached of time conflicting about anything that is not REALLY important.
In ten years, we've had maybe 5 or 6 really good fights.
God, I'm lucky.
I stay with my B4 (who shaded into B3 for a long time due to depression) because, quite simply, I would walk through the Sahara blindfolded in order to enjoy romantic love with an intelligent and attractive woman who is not afraid to express and enjoy her intellect.
As (I hope) an NG4, it became very important for me to start placing boundaries, etc. and realize that I was being unconsciously browbeaten into NG2. Once I understood that she did not, in fact, want me to be a #2, but that she was in general in need of having the world work in the way she wanted it to, I found it much easier to take a step back and say, "Hon, I'm sorry that I didn't do this the way you wanted it, but at this point you have to ask whether or not your care about my feelings exceeds your care about where the tweezers goes."
I do find it very frustrating that it's consistenly my job to take the step back, but, well, that's part of living with someone else's depression. You're the one who's got the sense of perspective, rather by definition.
Ravenmn, what a sensible post. Pity John Emerson checked out, he should've read it. BTW, you got a nice blog, too.
Grace, 1-3? That's an interesting bitch.
Aww, Kimmitt, you sound wonderful. Bravo.
Ravenm, thanks. I was hoping someone would show up and say that eventually.
I'm a late-comer to this thread, but I'd like to make some points:
1. A lot of this debate can be explained by "whoever can most easily walk away from a relationship has the most power."
2. The typology of nice guys doesn't make any sense without taking into account the level of attraction of the woman for the man and vice versa. The main difference between NG2,NG3 and NG4 seems to be how interested a woman is in having a relationship with the man.* Passive-aggression/shyness may not become apparent or become deal-breakers if the guy is sufficiently desirable and feels wanted. This may explain the stereotypical nice guy as a guy who is sexually interested in a woman, whose interest is not reciprocated, and who sticks around as a "friend" hoping to get into her pants at some later point. It's no wonder women don't like them.
* I should temper this point with the fact that passive-aggression/shyness affect attraction.
3. As far as the oft-heard complaint that "Chicks only dig jerks. Why don't they want a nice guy like me," why would women be just friends with a guy who treats them badly? If a guy is a jerk, either she's very very interested in him or he's out of her life. So, of course, a woman is going to have some nice guys among her friends but probably not as many jerks. There are plenty of jerks out there who are not with women.
Ooh, Dr. Kay, that's brilliant. I think what you're saying is a nice clear, less theoretical (and hence, for me, more comprehensible, b/c more concrete, e.g., it works through examples rather than overarching abstractions) expression of what Danny said way upthread, about how the types are really relational and interactive. I think you are absolutely right, and I think that also helps explain why some of the men on the thread are feeling defensive: the typology, as written, seems absolute and rigid--a man IS type 2 or whatever--when really, there's a flip side to it, which is that the types aren't states of being, they are states of behaving. Maybe the guys are saying, "I resent being typed as if it were me, when it isn't ME--it's how I reacted to x situation."
So glad you offered your late-to-the-discussion comment. So helpful.
Tom-e-lee and Adam had me rolling in the aisles with the details vs big picture thing and the Einstein follow-up. And it's so true--at least, it describes my husband and I very nicely. I do get hung up on details and small stuff--but my premise is usually one of the following:
"how one treats the small stuff is indicative of how one will treat the large stuff"
"big stuff rests upon small stuff--every big picture is made up of little details"
"small stuff connects to other small stuff, indicating a trend"
(If these premises are common to most women, then are women are natural conspiracy theorists?)
Whereas he often protests that 1) he brings a different mindset to bear on big picture things ("this matters") than on details ("this isn't such a big deal"), and 2&3) not everything is as connected as I seem to think it is.
We are learning that the key to happiness, effectiveness, and productivity is for each of us to learn in which situations the other is right about big picture vs little details. It's not easy, but when you marry your best friend you tend to work hard to make it work.
Even though I'm late to the conversation, I'd like offer a slightly different perspetive, if I may.
Perhaps many genuinely nice guys (I like to think I'm one) who happen to be quiet on the outside are actually very strong and secure on the inside - we simply don't get as emotional (up or down) about things and don't *react* to every little thing that happens around us or get caught up in details - especially in areas that we don't have any preference one way ot the other for (like what color should we paint this room?).
And as one poster said, very emotional or bitchy (in a good way) women kind of amuse us and being very "grouned" ourselves, don't ever really get to us. And let's not forget women *are*, in fact, the more emotional gender, on average. Women use both sides of their brain when communicating (men only the left side). So, there's a certain amount of expectation to begin with. Think about how many PMS jokes there are out there!
So, my wife gets worked about things I wouldn't, especially regarding little day-to-day decisions and she's definitely the one who would be more likely to complain to a waiter at a restuarant. But, not so much that I'm "weak" or passive, I simply wouldn't be as inclined to be upset about an honest mistake. But, when it comes to the big decisions (buying a house, car, how to handle a difficult relationship, etc.) it's my cool headedness under pressure that she relishes and depends on. So, both personality types definitely compliment each other.
To make a short story long, I believe the best and most successful couples are the ones whose personalities compliment each other - not compete with one another. So, strong "silent" (nice) guys who know what they're good at and are very competitive and passioniate in the areas that interest them - but don't feel the same need to be in areas that don't - paired with highly sensitive and "bitchy" women who care about alot more "little" things is the best combination in my humble opinion! I know I wouldn't want a woman who was laid back and wasn't confident enough to be bitchy when something bothered her.
Oops! Sorry, Nicole! I guess I didn't notice you already covered the "big picture" (men) vs. "details" (women) angle. Consider it further proof?
TD, the original post talks about guys who are genuinely nice because they don't sweat the small stuff.
But I think it is mistaken to say that "women are just more emotional" and (as some have pointed out in response to tom-e-lee's original joke about men worrying about the big picture and women worrying about the little things) also mistaken to say that women care about the little things, and to imply that both of those are just "natural" events. As a couple of people pointed out above: it's ALL little things, the big things are made up of a series of little things. And, culturally, we expect women to take care of the little things, and that creates a great deal of stress. And everyone is "naturally" emotional over stress.
One of the down sides of NG#4, I had forgotten to mention, is that often *part* of his "nice guyness" is predicated on the male privilege of not *having* to feel responsible for, or worry about, details. My dad is that kind of nice guy, and so was my grandfather. And it is surely true that these nice guys are great company, and as a bitchy woman I do try to be cognizant of situations where I can just let things go and be "nice" like that myself. But I'm also well aware that that aspect of the truly nice guys can be frustrating as hell to live with, all the more so because everyone around you thinks "he's so nice" and "she's such a bitch, she doesn't appreciate him," without ever realizing that it's her bitchiness about the details that *allows* him to play the nice role-b/c the details get taken care of without his having to worry about them.
Fair point; I can see what you're saying about your father and grandfather. It is very true that by my wife taking care of so many day-to-day details, I have less things to worry about and can put more into being better at my profession, just playing with the kids, etc. ("Behind every great man is a great woman".) She probably knows me better than I know myself.
Furthermore, you're also right that I can be frustrating for her at times (forgetfulness, leave socks lying around, etc.); however, it still works and we're pretty harmonious because I'm involved with our kids, work hard for our family, I'm strong when she needs me to be, and always very supportive of her in whatever she wants to do. I'm not controlling ever and I don't *force* her to take care of all those little things (afterall, I somehow survived ok before her).
So, again, I'll concede your last paragraph as a pretty good point, but I'd disagree somewhat with the first paragraph. I do think many (not ALL) women care more about little details than their men. You're right, men can sometimes take this for granted, but at the same time, we don't always care about them as much to begin with. Those that we do surely require us to be appreciative and when we do forget to be appreciative or start to take them for granted, bitchiness increases. There's a direct correlation to be sure.
But, I worry about "big picture" things like our retirement, outsourcing, inflation, my kid's college, whether they're safe at night and how we'd get out in case of a fire; my wife worries about how clean the living room is, if they've had bathes, what we're doing on the weekend 3 weeks from now, what bills need paid. Whether she worried about these "little things" or not, I probably still wouldn't worry about them anyway so it's not quite fair to say she's doing what I "should" be - many of the things just have higher importance to her. And, vice versa, she has little interest in things outside of daily life like the economy, foreign affairs, or astronomy - she never has even before we had kids that consume our lives now.
Adam,
I'm a very interesting bitch.
Also some elements of #6.
This is going way back, to a comment from Rudbeckia Hirta:
"Nice Guy: Women don't want to date me because I'm a nice guy! Blah blah blah! Not getting any! Life is unfair!
Woman he's talking to: [flirts with Nice Guy]
Nice Guy: [ignores advances and/or subtly moves his chair away] [Keeps ranting.]"
Oh boy, do I recognise that one.
I'm married to a NG4, but before reading all of this, I never would've identified myself as a bitch of any sort. I'm too laid-back, most of the time. (Not to say I haven't been *called* a bitch, of course - who hasn't?)
Just wanted to comment, though, that *I'm* very definitely the big picture person in our relationship, and he's the detail guy. In fact, too many details needing sorting out stress me worse than anything. He keeps track of our schedule, and does 90% of the housework, and reminds me to eat so I don't pass out. I keep him up-to-date on what's wrong with the world, and what needs to be done to fix stuff. It works for us.
Don't want to read all of the comments, so please forgive me if I repeat, but may I just make a couple of comments?
I don't know if I'm a nice guy (I suspect that I'm some mix of nice guy and sonofabitch, but aren't we all), but I'm married to an archetypal #4. There are a few reasons I'm married to her.
First, she knows what she wants, doesn't play games to try to get it, and expects the same of me. Trivial example: When we were first married, I tried to emulate my father. Being Orthodox Jews growing up, he always brought flowers for the Friday night table. I decided to do the same (though we are not Orthodox). My wife looked at me and said, "Y'know, I appreciate that you want to make the sabbath special, but I *hate* flowers. What say one of us brings home chocolate instead?" No games, no BS, just an honest request that I could answer honestly. We now have chocolate every Friday night to celebrate the sabbath.
That's trivial, but it becomes less trivial when the important things happen. When we got married, at ages 27 and 25, we did not want children. Years passed, and I began to think I did, so I raised it about 5 years ago (at ages 35 and 33). My wife's response says a LOT about why I love her so. "Y'know, we discussed this when we got married. I understand if you've changed, and if you need to find somebody with whom you can procreate. But I've not changed, and I don't want to raise children, even if you're willing to stay home to raise them. I love you, but I won't stand in your way if this has become something that you need. But it can't be something you need from me."
That's not easy to hear. But it's honest, and meant that I could decide about what was most important to me. I decided that she was more important to me than theoretical children. Or not. But either way, it felt like having children or not was my decision. And I decided that I wanted my wife.
There's another part, too, that I admit less often. There are times I HATE my wife. There are times when she's being thoughtless or rude, either to me or to somebody else, and I hate it. There are times when I want to yell at her. But, because I don't really want to make a larger scene, I will either wait and discuss it with her later or decide that it didn't bother me enough to be worth it. But the most important part is NOT playing psychodrama games. I never say, "Why did you embarass yourself? Or me?"
Instead, I simply say that her behavior bothered me, and explain why. But I'm not her judge, and I'm not responsible for her behavior. If she chose to get into an upleasant argument at a party, she is the one who will deal with it. I've made it clear to our friends that we don't come as some sort of package deal. If you are upset with me, you can still invite my wife to your party without me, and vice versa. So it doesn't matter to me in the end. If why I am bothered causes her to change her behavior in the future, great. But it's her behavior to change or not change. I don't own her, and I don't own her feelings.
Third, there is an element of ease to it. I get to hide behind her petticoats, like a child. Let me explain.
I am uncomfortable in fights. I don't know how to argue a little. I am perfectly happy to avoid an argument, but once the argument is joined, nothing is out of bounds for me. I will make personal arguments that doubt my opposite's decency. I will accuse someone of stupidity if he or she makes a stupid argument. I only know one way to argue, and that is to win.
Fortunately, in conflict situations, such as when we were ripped off by a moving company, I just tell her what happened and let her yell at someone. She will NEVER let it go, especially if the person on the other end of the phone seems dismissive of her. Her experience is so strongly that men dismiss complaints from women that she will pursue it to the end.
And that stops me from having to do it. It means that she was so damned mean to the moving company that I was not forced to do what I though had to be done and take them to small claims court. Is that chicken of me? Perhaps. But it was convenient, so I did it.
Yes, this means that our arguments can be LULUS! She fights to win, too. But, because we both understand that ground rule, we only fight if we mean it, we fight to a resolution we can both live with, and whoever wins the argument is always gracious. As such, our arguments never get loud, and they end satisfyingly.
Finally, this brings me back to the one other comment I've ever posted on this blog. Dr. B made the comment about one day when Mr. B came home as she was at the end of her tether and didn't understand that he needed to BACK THE F*** OFF! I mentioned that my wife and I have come up with a system for those times. I say the word "mood," and she knows to leave me alone. She says the word "testicles," and I understand that, if I want to keep mine, I'll leave her alone for at least half an hour or so.
Do I like this system? No. It's juvenile, and it's unfair that I need to tiptoe around the house, or leave altogether, because she had a bad day.
But it works for us. And that's the real reason that guys stick around #4's. It works for us. None of us can really examine exactly which holes in our personalities our friends, lovers and paramours fill. And, like you, we've discovered that no one person fills all of those holes, so we both have other relationships that matter to us. But both of us find that, in the end, this relationship fills enough holes that we don't mind the parts we don't like.
In other words, when you say that you are 10 or 20 percent bitch, you are merely saying that you're human. We're all that much of a bitch. At least. So you're sometime shrill and unreasonable? Welcome to the human race. Are you suggesting that Mr. B is somehow NEVER shrill or unreasonable, yet also isn't as dumb as a houseplant? If so, hell, I want to marry him, and I'm, for the most part, straight! I don't care if sexuality is biological (and I believe it is); I'll FIND a way for someone like that. Just tell me how to woo him away from you, because I'm on my way!
(NB: I have found perfectly kind and pliant people, but all of them were that dumb.)
So keep on bitching. We love you just the way you are. And, because you're a 4, if the day comes that it's too much, we can tell you that, too. And you'll either change, deciding that we're worth it, or you will consciously decide that you like the way you are and don't want to change.
Or, to paraphrase a bad book and worse movie, loving a 4 means never having to say, "I wonder what she *really* wants."
Ron you rock. And I agree: a marriage where both partners can articulate a clear bottom line is SO MUCH better, and easier in the long run, than a relationship where people can't do that.
Mychelline, upon further review, I guess my mom is a "big picture" person too while my stepdad is the "details" one; same for my sister being more of the "big picture" person to her husband's more detail-oriented. So, at least in my family, the pattern doesn't fit except for them (but does for me and my brother vs. our respective spouses). Perhaps it's as much inherited as it is a gender-specific thing (I know we always had lots of philosophical conversations at family gatherings while such "trivial" things as laundry ot dishes weren't viewed as quite as important).
However, Dr B already made a pretty convincing argument why *many* women assume the detail-oriented role (at least for as long as they can stand it), because it's been culturally expected of them. Yet, I can't help but to think there's probably many more who would be "naturally" anyway. But, again, it's not true in your case, in my mom's case, in my sister's case, or many other women's cases. So, it just goes to show generalizing anything is always met with an infinitude of real-world counter examples to the contrary, but as human beings (who depend on pattern recognition to survive) we can't help ourselves.
Ron, I hear you! My wife would stay on the phone for hours to get what she wanted - I would give up after 30 seconds, but the rare times I have jumped on the line (because they weren't taking her serious enoough), I've blown my stack and then definitely not gotten the desired outcome. Of course, this is ironic because being a NG4 it takes *alot* for me to get mad.
Also, I identify with your letting her vent her anger while staying calm and cool - at least for the time being - and just deal with it later. I wasn't always this sure. Early in our marriage I took it more personally and tried to "win at all costs" too. As we settled in I learned to accept the fact that she simply has a much shorter fuse than me and I shouldn't take such times so personal. Because, afterall, you can't persuade somebody to see your point of view when they're boiling in anger defensively, so you wait until they calm down and talk about it the next day when she's not so fired up and emotional.
What's really ironic is the longer we've been married, the less and less we have heated aguments to the point that's it's now extremely rare to have one. So, this tactic is definitely beneficial. Afterall, you don't throw more gas on a fire if you want to put it out.
Life is too short for so long a backlog, but let me add my two cents worth:
"And yet, we know that "nice girls aren't pushy"--at least, not in public--and we've seen more than enough situations where ambitious women have been crapped on for being "abrasive" or "well she should have known" or "lacking tact"--much of which simply boils down to "being a woman"--so, in public, there's this constant stress of trying to balance your ambition with not wanting to shoot yourself in the foot by admitting that you're ambitious."
This is sexist nonsense -- the truth is that nice people aren't pushy, abrasive, ignorant or lacking in basic tact and civility. Ambition is not best served by being confrontational and getting in everyone's face over every little thing. It has nothing to do being a woman or a man. I work with a couple of men (and women) who fit this description of "ambitious" who are never going to get anywhere because they piss too many people off with their arrogant behaviour based on the belief that they deserve promotion regardless of merit, ability to get along with co-workers or evident judgement.
And nice guys of the first variety are mostly just the descent ones, "the good ones" who got a bit lonesome and desparate and are trying too hard to make a good impression. Very few turn into abusive stalkers as Bitch Ph.D described above. Women so often complain that men are commitment averse, but when they meet nice guy #1 who is looking to get married and soon -- they run like hell, just like guys run from women who bring up the kind of wedding they'd like or kids names on the third date.
As far as the romantic gestures go - some women want and appreciate them, some don't. Those that like them often complain that men don't appreciate romance, don't present any tangible evidence of their affection. Some men like to demonstrate their affection in this way -- others view it as "paying for it" (the latter group being assholes, not nice guys). To make the generalization that a man who brings a woman long-stemmed red roses is somehow a jackass because it indicates he thinks all women like roses is kind of obtuse. Most people acknowledge red roses as a sort of standard romantic guesture and so giving them as a gift makes a kind of standard, if cliched, emotional statement, much like offering to cook a meal says "I want to take care of you", giving flowers means "I like you, and not in the I-really-just-want-to-be-friends kind of way"
LOLOLOLOL. This would work in the ER household, I think:
"I say the word "mood," and she knows to leave me alone. She says the word "testicles," and I understand that, if I want to keep mine, I'll leave her alone for at least half an hour or so."
Hoo hoo. ... Thought Dr. ER might shorten it to 'nads, which for some reason is uttered an awful lot in this house.
I am not a details-oriented person naturally. I hate it and am kind of bad at it. Neither are any of my parents or adult family growing up.
But my parents and adult family had a maid service.
details it is.
definitely a gender thing, not a nature thing.
you are as bad as you think you are.
and that's okay
-married to a 4
I talked to a family therapist about something similar.
He told a long, involved story which was actually a metaphor.
To shorten it up considerably, think of a guy who just got out of the Army. He was a grunt. In combat.
What he wants to be happy is pretty limited. Indoor plumbing. No holes in the house. Nobody shooting at him. Hot food several times a week.
His temperature comfort zone is so wide that he never asks for the thermostat to be moved. Somebody else is uncomfortable first. So he's never uncomfortable. Ditto when they eat. His hunger habit is irregular, so he's used to being hungry and not eating, or used to eating when it's available even if he's not hungry. And he can fix himself a peanut butter sandwich. So he doesn't need anybody to feed him, but since meals will come, he eats, without asking anybody to do it. He'll eat anything--has--so he isn't interested in telling anybody what to fix. Anything will do. Any time. The waiter brings the wrong order? He might not notice, or if he does, doesn't care.
Point is, he can go for a week or a month in a family situation and get all his administrative needs met without once asking anybody for anything.
Does this generate respect? According to my buddy, it generates contempt. Probably unconscious, at first, but pretty certainly.
Is he a nice guy? Is being irritated with this the same as being a bitch? Is taking this as permission to take over going to work out?
He's not, by definition, a wimp. He's a stone killer. He puts up with no shit. It's just that his idea of shit is different from that of a sillyvilian.
My buddy said that in his practice he came very close to telling guys in this situation (the above description is a metaphor) that they have to make stuff up to insist upon, and it doesn't matter what it is as long as it inconveniences one or more members of the family. Apparently there are some professional canons which preclude this, he says, but he's tempted.
Is the guy a counterproductive personality in the context of a marriage? Should he become picky as a tactic? How should his wife work with what seems like an opportunity to take over? Once she's in the habit of making most decisions--in her own interest since he's okay with anything--how does she react when something happens that draws him out?
I've been married for over thirty years, so the dating scene today is unfamiliar and what little I know is through a couple of social workers I deal with.
According to them, many men are in part like the guy described above. Don't care about a number of things which puts the woman, who is more likely to care, in the decisionmaker role. Can that role and his lack of interest in various things lead to bitchy woman/passive man (he knows how to fight, but blowing her up seems over the top)?
I just have to agree that the women who are really successful with men and have them fawning all over them are real bitches. Most aren't even attractive--at least if they were attractive, it would make sense, but men really get turned on by a woman who is a bitch. Ever notice how guys really like it when a woman gets angry? I think it turns them on if a woman is in bitch mode 100% of the time. Plus, if their woman is a bitch, it just gives them more to whine and complain about.
This blogger is going to be alone...alot.
SCENARIO 1:
I've morphed any number of times in my life. When I used to date, I could be a pretty heartless bitch. Wasn't interested in "forever" but a good meal worked for me. Sometimes, when I think back, I can't really believe I said or did the things I did. I just didn't care at the time about their feelings at all.
SCENARIO 2:
Fast forward a few years, well, I'm more interested in "forever" now. I am NICE to them.
SCENARIO 1: Endless lines of eager fellows can't seem to get enough of what I'd sling there way.
SCENARIO 2: Short relationships where clearly I lend no interest whatsover to guys.
hum. I believe I need to get back into my bitch saddle.
It seems to be what they want.
RA, all I have to say is LOL.
But if posts like this get people like *you* to leave me alone, then great.
Sorry so late to the party. Just found out via MSNBC's "Clicked"...
Can I just say that it seems like some people are taking this way too seriously. Seriously. If you're offended by that, I'm probably talking about you. If not, we're talking about *them* (wink! shhhh).
I hate all those Myers-Briggs and Corporate America Touchy Feely tests that try to peg you as a person A, B, C, or D, because nobody *ever* fits neatly and uniquely into one square. Nonetheless, everybody immediately feels the need to start putting themselves into a category.
In contrast, Dr. Bitch (for whom I am developing a major hard-on, BTW) seemed to be just saying, you know, "here's some observations". No need for everybody to get so hung up on labeling themselves and doing the mental gymnastics to determine if you're NG #3, NG #4, or B#3 with B#1 tendencies.
Just enjoy the read, and worry more about simply being a decent human being.
Guys:
- Remember her birthday, her mother's birthday, your anniversary, your first date, the first time she said she loved you
- Put up with a tremendous amount of her bullshit, until she turns mean. Then don't.
- Never, ever, ever fuck her sister or best friend.
- Bring her meaningful gifts on completely meaningless days.
- Don't tell her the dress makes her look fat (which it always does). Do tell her when she's got a booger in her nose.
- You don't have to have a lot, but be generous with what you do have
- Don't try to fix her problems, just listen to her bitch about them. Yeah, I don't get it either.
Girls:
- Remember that you can be strong and independent without being bitter and mean.
- Put up with a tremendous amount of his bullshit, until he turns mean. Then don't.
- Don't ever ask us if we fantasize about fucking your sister or best friend. You don't want to know.
- A man's ego is a lot more fragile than you know. Take gentle care of it.
- Swallow.
- Bitch all you want. Just don't make everything his fault, and don't do it during the game.
And Angelina Jolie??? Skank. Sorry, it's true.
OK. This is all very interesting .... and as far as my life right now is concerned, quite valid.
But how much do hormones really effect a woman? Should they be an acceptable excuse for becoming a bitch, or are they simply exacerbating an already high level of bitchiness? Shouldn't a girl know it is the hormones making her feel so horrible BUT still be able to control her words and behaviour???
i agree with basically everything you said about the different types of women and i beleive i am a strong w who has everything in common with your last paragraph!!!! thanks i got my laugh for today. keep writing!!!!
hahaha I love it!!!
Funny article..too bad that in reality, life is not that black and white. Cant really group men in certain categories and assume they will be a certain way everyday. Yesterday I was mister nice guy, today I'm a total prick, anyways thanks for the article, it made me laugh.
I'm a shy, nice guy. Here are my opinions in response to what you say about guys.
I think you're pretty insightful, but I might be able to add a couple things.
I think I'm both a number 3 and 4 type guy, or likely a cross between the two. I don't like giving orders and I don't like taking them either. I don't want to be the dog or the master. If we can't be partners, then go away.
The 1 type guy is disgusting to me and most other men also. Thank God you don't like that. I hope most other women don't like that behavior either because if I have to humiliate myself to have a woman, then I don't want one. I'm not sure that the number 1 guys are dominating bullies. Some might be. I think mainly they're ridiculous embarrassments to themselves and everyone around them. Those grand public gestures are called grand romantic gestures). Yuk! My brother-in-law is one of those number 1 guys crossed with a number 4. He's a total jerk to me and we've verbally had it out a few times. However, he is nice to my sister and she loves him dearly.
So things aren't so black and white as you think, IMO.
Regarding bitchy women: I try to be nice and considerate and I expect the same in return.
How to tell the difference between a number 2 guy vs. 3? A number 3 guy can find his balls when the situation requires it. Like when his life or your life is at risk. A number 2 has no balls and can't find them no matter what.
Come to think of it, I can prove I'm not a number 2. Our 275 lb adult muscular neighbor mugged my 65 lb little sister when we were kids. I was a 140 lb 17 year old at the time and I confronted the guy to protect my little sister. Things got physical too as the guy attacked me. I didn't win, but I didn't lose either.
A number 3 or 4 guy can find their balls to protect their loved ones. I probably would not have stuck up for myself if he mugged me, but this guy messed with my little sister!
I'm 38 now. I haven't had a serious confrontation since I was 17. Well actually I have, but I was the victom, not my loved ones. So I reacted passively. However, I can tell you for a fact, if someone messes with my loved ones I am capable of becoming as dangerous and aggressive as necessary to defend them. I guarantee.
However, I prefer to be passive when situations allow.
The Bad Bitch vs. the Good Bitch
As you may have gathered from my post above, I'm rather shy and submissive with women (to a point). I'd like to tell you my
perspective on so called bitchy women.
First I'll start with an example of what I'd call the "bad bitch", the "evil bitch", etc. My mom was one of these. She was
angry and emotionally and physically abusive to my dad, me, and my younger brother and sister. I was the oldest kid and got
the worst abuse. My dad wouldn't put up with her abusing the kids when he was around, but he worked 6 days a week. To a large
extent, I had to be the parent for my younger siblings. That's general background. More specifically, my mom used to
constantly verbally abuse me and sometimes punch me in the face or kick me in the skins. She once put a plastic bag over my
face when I was 8. This abuse from earliest memory up to 19 years old. I was physically her equal at age 14, but to cowed to
defend myself. At 16 I was very muscular and could have defended myself, but still to cowed. One day when I was 19 she hit me
in the face for the 3rd time that day and I just layed a big punch on her in return. She balled and sniveled to my dad about
it, which was something I'd never seen her do before. He looked her in the eye and told her she deserved it and to stop
hitting the kids. She never hit me again and her verbal abuse has never been as much since. In fact, she and I started
getting along reasonably well after that. I think my sister's abuse started mainly after my mom couldn't abuse me anymore.
Despite all of this, my sister and I turned out pretty well. However, I do have some hard feelings over it and I won't ever
put up with a woman abusing me or my kids. I eye possible abusive bitches with suspicion. The first clue is frequent berating
and belittleing her man. No thanks. Been there, not going back.
Now for an example of a "good bitch". However, I wouldn't call such a woman a bitch. I'd call her wonderful. Years ago, I saw
a beautiful women in a gym. I admit that I politely looked her over. At least I thought I was polite. I was attracted to her.
Her response was to get in my face and tell me not to look at her because she didn't like that. I meekly and sincerely
apologized. She accepted my apology and later she asked me out. What the heck? Turns out that Bonnie hated macho aggressive
men, but liked shy men. I dated her for 8 months, until I moved away. She was super nice, sweet, and protective of me. I
never asked her to be protective of me. I can do that myself. However, it did make me feel really loved. She was nicer to me
than any woman before or since. She was 100% assertive with the world outside our relationship, but within our relationship
she was considerate, kind, and always asked what I wanted. She was the best. I found out from others who knew her that she
had a habit off punching and kicking the crap out of macho type guys who'd looked at her and wouldn't apologize. Was that
excessive behavior on her part? I'd say yes, but I never complained about it or mentioned it because she was so nice and kind
to me. Other guys thought her a psycho, aggressive bitch. To me, she was wonderful.
Bonnie was the virtual opposite of my mom. Bonnie was aggressive with the world, but kind to her man. My mom was brutal and
domineering to her family, but not very assertive with the world outside the family.
Thank you for all the insights so far. Thank goodness for the internet, otherwise I would not have known about being a no.2! So now I know yo hide it. You intelligent women deserve the heads up...
Well Ive had a long term with a 1, trying to scrape a #2 off of me cause he just doesnt get it, and am thinking Im embarking on an adventure with a #5. He fits no description above, therefore Im pondering the next explaination Yes Im a Bitch, and proud to say so. I am a strong woman and I know what I want from a man and out of a relashionship. When I figure out #5, I will share! Great site , bye the way
It is a fact that some horrible women find bullies attractive. As a victim of bullying i found it very painful when I found that out, that often men who bullied me would be found attractive for being bullies, it is an agonisingly painful devastating blow and a nightmare. But the most painful thing of all though was when you used to get those nasty oxymoron books why do "nice" women go for... (it is an oxymoron to say you can find abuse attractive ane think you are nice). That was what really did it for me. That they actually thought they could classify themslves as nice people while fancying bullies. It really got to me on many a level. I can accept there there will allways be horrile men and horrible women, but when they think they are the good guys that is when it really does get to you. And those books were offensive I knew that the women who found the bullies attractive were not nice they were horrible people. You cannot find someone attractive for doing abuse and still think you are nice. I can come to terms with the fact there are horrible people, but when they think they are good guys is really hurtful, and like an extra layer of agonising pain.
I would probably be number 2 at best. For me what makes me angry is the whole idea of someone fancying someone bulying me. That is pain in the extreme. Nothing to do with not feeling masculine. I don't think about that sort of issue. It is just a sense of morality. It just seems unfair and cruel, and nasty in the extreme. Only a paedo will insult me.
You seem to have put a lot of thought into this. More than I ever would.
Thank you for your blog! I resonate with your #4. As an ambitious woman living with a nice guy, there is that struggle, and you put it best:
"I think this is often...a problem of high-achieving women: we put very high expectations on ourselves, and we have a certain amount of anger at situations where we perceive that our achievements or efforts are undervalued (some of which, no doubt, is merely an externalization of the internal struggle between ambition and the internalized sexism that "nice girls aren't pushy")."
Walking the fine line of pushy/ambitious is one thing ambitious guys never have to even think about. But it's easily a huge part of our everyday life as women. If we're not just being plain ol' mean, which is often not the case for us #4s, YES we are being too hard on ourselves! That narrow space between pushy/ambitious is stressful, lonely and impossible to live in. Of course we'll be frustrated every now and then, whenever we give in to believe in that evil dichotomy. This is one occupational hazard of the ambitious woman.
Ultimately, we have to break out of that space between pushy/ambitious whenever we can. The more we do it with delight, without shame, the better off we'll be as individuals and as women in general.
We all know what it means to "stand by your man." Helping a man through his particular struggles has clear rules. However, our culture hasn't yet completley developed the language of what it means to "stand by your woman." To me, it means understanding that we women still WORRY about being Perceived as bitchy, pushy. What I tell my guy about support -- when I get stressed/worrysome, please remind me that my being strong, assertive is GOOD. That's all.
You ask
"Or is it that we (4)s really aren't as bad as we think we are, and in thinking we must be, we're being as bitchy to ourselves as we think we are to everyone else?"
Yes, this is it!... IMO. In the next century I think the negativity of assertive woman / bitch will go away - especially if women like us continue to be us. But the culture is still in that transition stage. Let's ease up on ourselves, it's a hard place to be....
I am a 60-yr-old male. My wife is dead. I spent 37 days watching cancer take her. In the name of everything nameable, if you are going to fight pick something more important than that. If you can. And if you both can, there is something wrong with you both. I don't give a damn what kind you are.
Yes, I agree with the 60 year old who lost his wife to cancer. Life is more pleasent, calm, beautiful than all the bitchy or powermaniac a person can be (male or female). All powerful men in history tend to be tender loving fathers and husbands at home. They maybe a tyrant to their country but a peace loving patient father or lover. And vice-versa most men who are world sweetheart celebrities come out to be abusive maniacs at home. The same slides down to explain modern women who can make their own decisions in society and at home. So, finally it isn't bitchy women or abusive men. It is individual bearings of the psyche. You can have all combinations of relations in this world. We have more than 6 billion human population. What are the odds? If a person wants to be a gentle caring sweetheart to others he or she grows to be one. A lovely gentle girl child who had a bossy, well built, aggressive mother who never gave a damn for her husbands words or likes and dislikes; often ends up like her mother. She enjoys being the boss of the house or of any group for that matter. And inturn she outlivens the idea of being a natural woman. The same goes for men. Arguements and ideals can go on. So can the good and evil doctrines. None can make out one from the other. Everyone whether we like it or not is living in a confused era with confused couples, children, parents, name it; the Generation is declining in qualtiy of character.
As a reformed nice guy I can tell you that once I got used to the idea that when pursuing women it pays to be a tad jerky, I have never spent another weekend alone. This isn't to say that I keep up the disinterested, jerk act. Far from it. The amazing thing is that AFTER
I get the ball rolling with a girl by being somewhat obnoxious, then I can revert back to my natural state which is to be kind, considerate, and a good listener which, for some BIZARRE reason, isn't the least bit attractive to women in bars or the social scene in general. I guess they want a challenge too so if you are the proverbial "nice guy" then do whatever takes to put that on hold - at least till you get some action going. Looks its a game and women seem to PREFER men who play games comapred to ones who don't so use the rules to your advantage.
Relationships are hard. My own passive nature allows me to get along well with mostly everyone, but can leave me unsure of what to do when a conflict arises.
Here's a question: what do you do to confront a person who RELISHES conflict? There are people out there who love to argue; personally, I hate it. I can't help but feel that a confrontation in that situation would only end up hurting myself. Those encounters rarely help me feel better, personally. At the same time, though, doing nothing feels pretty crappy, too.
As for shyness, I can be shy. It only lasts until I have met someone, at which point I can be reasonably sure that they actually, you know, want to hear whatever I'm talking about. Before that, it just feels like I'm being bothersome, and I don't like to do that. I guess that's pretty insecure. It's pretty dumb really, too, because when strangers talk to me, my first reaction isn't "I wish this person would shut up," although that DOES become my reaction from time to time.
I happen to be in a relationship with a #4, and response to the question (why do men like bitchy women) I'm going to go with the suggestion: "they like the 80-90% that's strong, confident, and assertive, and frankly really hate the 10-20% that's just flat-out bitchy...". In my partner's case I think it's more of a 60%/40% split, but damn - that 60% is really good!
Saw this linked from a recent post. It seems reasonably accurate to me, but (4) for the women just sounds like someone who is... human. You deal with shit (read:life) on a day to day basis and occasionally get stressed out and react.
Commenting by HaloScan
