For Daisy Deadhead, who said…

…“Bad boys” DOES NOT equal “socially dominant” and this is the major mistake in your post that turns it into ideological mush, no offense. You constantly conflate “bad boys” and “dominant men” in your post… which is bloody maddening. You seem unaware that the bad boys were already given long prison sentences by the lawyers and judges (dominant men).
So, who are you talking about, in that case?”
Daisy Deadhead, on Nice Guys

I’m turning my reply to Daisy Deadhead into a post, just so more people can watch this important public service announcement:

Yes, it’s true that aggressive “bad boys” who are anti-social often end up low on the social hierarchy, (like “Chad”), and good men who ‘play by the rules’ can often rise to relatively high-status positions in society. That’s called “having a society that more or less functions.” In fact, I’d say that the extent to which “bad” men are punished and “good” men are rewarded reveals a lot about how decent and just a particular society is. In modern western democracies, there is a correlation (albeit a relatively weak one, I’d argue) between ‘playing by the rules’ (“being good”) and enjoying prestige and respectability. (The correlation is probably higher is social democracies like Sweden, and lower in countries with a less humane social hierarchy, such as the United States.) I’d also add that it’s possible for a man to be dominant and aggressive AND also be a decent human being. See: Emmanuel, Rahm.

You’re wrong, however, in discounting the correlation between aggressiveness and the “high-status/social dominance” of men who are successful. Look around at who has power in the world. High-status men are, like the rest of humanity, a mixed bag. Some are good and decent, others not so much. Some men achieve high-status positions by being kind to others and contributing to society. Other men achieve high-status positions by playing hardball, stepping on others, and taking advantage of the weak. The latter don’t behave like thugs (at least, not publicly) because they are smarter. But their behavior can be even more harmful. Sometimes, the difference between a brutish lunkhead and a high-powered Wall Street trader is not “goodness,” but rather intelligence and the ability to think strategically and delay gratification.

Also, although a blockhead like “Chad” eventually finds himself with little status in society, when he is young (in high school), his aggressiveness is overvalued at a time when his classmates, other teenage boys, are just beginning to explore sexual relationships with girls. This can cause other, less aggressive boys to question their own value and attractiveness. So, even though the “Chads” of this world eventually lose out, their youthful popularity still has negative and isolating effects on other teenage boys.

So to answer your question. Who am a talking about? In my “nice guys” post, when I talk about “socially dominant men”, I’m defining the term as: “Men who exhibit hypermasculine characteristics such as dominance and a sexually entitled attitude.” This can include “bad boys” such as “Chad,” above, and can also include men who will go on to be more “successful” in life.

Many commenters have pointed out that men can be “confident” without being unkind, and that there are a lot of good, “confident” men who attract women. I agree with this.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to For Daisy Deadhead, who said…

  1. Jim says:

    “In modern western democracies, there is a correlation (albeit a relatively weak one, I’d argue) between ‘playing by the rules’ (“being good”) and enjoying prestige and respectability. ”

    Well there are rules and there are rules, and some rules conflict with others. The rules that make you a decent and moral person are not the rules that make you inot a CEO or a successful politician, because people say they prefer one kind of behavior and reward another.

    Your point about who is socially dominant at one stage of life as opposed to another is dead on the money. Why do they refer to Bill Gates as the poster boy for revenge of the nerds, if there was no revenge for the nerds to take?

    Thus the saying about raising kids: “Boys will drive you crazy but girls will break your heart.” when your daughter marries the stud on the bike instead of that shy, intelligent inventor of some kind of social media.

  2. Danny says:

    The latter don’t behave like thugs (at least, not publicly) because they are smarter. But their behavior can be even more harmful. Sometimes, the difference between a brutish lunkhead and a high-powered Wall Street trader is not “goodness,” but rather intelligence and the ability to think strategically and delay gratification.
    And that’s how you end up with some “bad boys” that never make it off the street corner of their hood while other “bad boys” end up becoming CEOs and politicians. Its easy to see the low level “Chads” get punished for their bad behavior, not get any status, and think that’s how all “bad boys” end up. Meanwhile that CEO of that company that has things manufactured in foreign countries with slave labor just “lobbied” to get an even bigger tax break and no one noticed.

  3. aleknovy says:

    I think what the nice-guys seem to be protesting is something else. And this is just me guessing, since I have never been one, or been friends with one.

    From their rants, what I’ve gathered is that they seem to mind the LYING and misleading they receive. They’re told “its all about being nice”… Nice beats everything…

    Truth is… When you point out that a woman will be with a violent, dominant man, you’re not saying “most women want violent men”. You’re pointing out that dominance is so attractive to women… that they’ll EVEN sometimes tolerate other crap if it goes along with it.

    Esau had that great comment on hookingupsmart. The trouble the unattractive guy has is the bunch of lies and misleading crap he’s been fed his entire life.

    Ugly women at least know why they’re not getting as much success. They’re not told by guys “oh oh, you see, we as guys, the thing we most value is that you use the right toothpaste. You need to use the RIGHT toothpaste in order to attract guys”.

    And then the ugly woman spends her entire life brushing her teeth with that brand, getting no results with men… And when she rants about having been lied to.

    The men come and say [feminist equivalent] –> They tell her… NO NO you dumb entitled bitch. You think just because faked liking that toothpaste that you’re OWED a good man. F YOU… You just pretended to like that toothpaste… Its not the real you!

    She: But my point is women who don’t even use toothpaste are getting great guys! Some women who only use mouthwash get great boyfriends

    The men [feminist equivalents]: “I can’t belive you!!! You’re saying men who don’t shower and have zero hygiene. That’s just you making excuses for being entitled!!!”

    I know my toothpaste analogy sounds dumb, but its not that far off from what women do to men… I think Esau at hookingupsmart explained it much better…

    * The ugly woman has it tough, but on the whole she at least knows why. The message from men and all quarters of society is “If you don’t look like this, within these bounds, then you’re going to have a very hard time getting love or attention.” It’s nasty, but it’s honest. The ugly woman’s world is cruel but it is not insane, in that what she is told will generally agree with what she experiences.

    The burnt-out man, by contrast, lived in an absolute madhouse. He was told, constantly, by women and by all quarters of society, that women’s highest priorities are for a man to be kind, decent and intelligent; but his experience is _nothing_ like this at all. If he makes the (fatal) mistake of taking women at their word, and he doesn’t have natural social dominance, then he fails and he has no idea why he fails. The psychic toll of being forced to live in an incoherent world should not be underestimated.

    * Closely related is the simple fact, that while men and women are both shallow, men are much more honest about admitting it. This is not to claim that men are more honest in any day-to-day sense; certainly PUA’s will lie through their teeth if it helps them tactically to do so. But when you hear people talk unguardedly about their desires when there’s nothing immediately on the line, most men will be quite candid that a certain level of looks is their least negotiable priority in a sexual partner; women, by contrast, will try to avoid looking shallow in order to preserve their image or self-image, and so will typically lie outright, even to themselves.

    * As a result, I think that men are generally much more honest in admitting to the damage we cause. Speaking personally I have no problem in admitting/recognizing that men’s essential shallowness (or narrowness) in demanding good looks has made life hard for a number of otherwise good and deserving women; and that I’m as guilty as any other man and not especially proud of it. You and all the other female writers, by contrast, still flatly, adamantly refuse to admit the obvious reality of the flip side, that women’s shallowness, combined with hypocrisy, has made life absolute hell for very large numbers of deserving men.

    In essence, nice guys are complaining about the hypocrisy, misleading and mixed messages.

    My take on this is that probably women have as group evolved to confuse the heck out of the male species, almost on purpose. Its a “shit test” on a bigger level if you will. The idea is that the strong/cunning/right man will figure out the lies.

    That’s why guys who are “in the know” get laid. That’s the big trick. Its as you said a big guessing culture.

  4. hahaha,

    What a fuckin’ loser! I hope this is a joke….

    Well the people I went to HS with were douchebags so if they wound up like “Chad” they can suck a bowl of dicks!

    Life got way better after HS.

    Of course I moved out of the crap town as soon as I could and never looked back….

Comments are closed.