A Most Curious Submission

I tell ya... if you're gonna be congenial in an email, I'll be congenial right back. There is a world of difference between disagreeing with me and writing me as a cutesy-poo attempt at insulting a third party. This chick crossed that line when she decided to write to me as some kind of extension to an interpersonal grudge she's been having with some other guy. (Please tell me: does that make any farking sense to anybody out there?)

I rarely see anyone speak out of both corners of their mouth so unabashedly to the extent that this chick does- and yet she does it so smugly, too. She sets-out to tell us that women are innocently blameless for their own behavior... furthermore, she knows exactly where to place the 'real' blame. This letter was written to me with the title "Don't hate the playa, hate the game." (That might sound like a clever thing to say, but she's immediately demonstrated that in her mind, the non-culpability rule is in effect for anyone with a vagina. She doesn't want to acknowledge that it is women who write the rules of the 'game'.)

Hi there!

One of my male "friends" sent me an email with your website address, as one of those pointed passive-aggressive gestures. (Perhaps she'd prefer a pointed active-aggressive gesture such as him taking a pick-axe to her head? -- NG) Since he's launching himself into the same type of twisted "I'm a nice guy, women suck" thing going on that you do, you're both receiving this. I don't know you, NiceGuy of webpage, so some of my observations may not be accurate, but I do know YOU, "Nice Guy Friend", and since your thinking seems to have so much in common, I'll treat you both as though you are the same. It makes things nice and simple to lump completely different people into the same convenient category. (Ugh. Rolls eyes. So now I'm an appendage to whatever guy this chucklehead got irritated by. That's not a good thing to start-off with. -- NG)

The one criticism that I didn't addressed in the webpage (maybe it's the number 11 criticism that didn't make it to the top 10 list, or maybe you just twisted number 8 around to be something more palatable to you) is that you're not really what you claim to be. You're not a "nice guy". Oh, I don't mean that you're "not nice" in the obvious way that you've already responded to. Like, you don't kick dogs or push old ladies down stairs, and I'm sure you're the kind of guy who stands on the bus so the pregnant lady can sit down. So you're not an evil bastard, good for you. I mean that your type of "nice" isn't the result of thinking people should treat each other well. Maybe you DO feel that way, but not towards women with whom you desire a romantic relationship. Your type of being "nice" to such women has a string attached. Your "nice" isn't real, it's a type of manipulation. (Heh, I think this reveals a lot about her attitude towards being 'nice' and not necessarily my attitude. Of course a woman will assume that being 'nice' necessarily has a string attached, because she uses the same principle with her own niceness! A woman calling a man a 'manipulator' is truly the pot calling the kettle black, by the way. I suppose it's a waste of time for me to point-out that women habitually use the promise of sex as a form of manipulation? Oh, no no no... It's perfectly okay when a woman's affections have strings attached. -- NG)

(She is about to tell us all exactly what I 'want' in a woman- because I don't know what my 'real' intentions are. And, surprise, none of them are good. -- NG) You describe yourself as trying to be submissive and to behave in a way you think a woman wants, but at heart, you don't really care about the woman, you care about making her love and want you. You want a puppet woman. (I love how my purported subconscious motivations have become indisputable facts with so much certainty. Case of psychological projection, perhaps? -- NG) By acting a certain way, you should be able to control how she responds, in the same way that you can control a computer or your vcr. (Take note, this is one of the top reasons why even computer geek girls often avoid dating computer geek boys.) (I see. So I'm a control freak who wants to 'own' a woman- and women can sense this. She is certainly good at imagining all kinds of fanciful ulterior motives to ascribe to my every action. -- NG) And worse, it's not that you want THIS woman to love and want you, it's that you want ANY woman. It doesn't really matter who it is, until through happenstance, you happen to get one, and discover, "oh, that's not really who I was looking for". (Funny, that. I've been more frequently dumped by women who have given me that same message. -- NG)

Well, guess what? If your scheme is to make women love you by making yourself an available floormat for them, don't be surprised if some of the women start walking on you. (Well, suffice to say she regards someone who is nice as being someone she can walk-on. Naturally, I must invite shabby treatment! It must be the man's fault somehow! Laff! The female non-culpability rule is indeed in-effect with this chick. -- NG) The amount of hostility I feel from you towards women is misdirected. (Hah! She says this as if involving me in her grudge isn't misdirected! Laff! -- NG) Yes, I'd be angry too if someone walked all over me, but I think I would be more angry with myself for inviting that kind of abuse. (Ahh yes, the woman can never be responsible for what she does. If a woman behaves like a total ass-wipe, it's because I must've asked for it. Makes perfect sense. -- NG) I prefer to avoid people who are willing to walk on me, or if I have to associate with them, I make sure that I'm not lying on the ground while they're around. You, on the other hand, are chasing this type of person around offering yourselves to them in the goal to prove that if they weren't completely screwed up, that they'd logically have to conclude that you're worthy of their love (or at least, their desire). Why are you so surprised that this isn't how things turn out most of the time? When's the last time you fell passionately in love with a rug?

Your relationships with women are based around being the loving and supportive male friend who can help her take care of all her problems. That'd be very noble and selfless of you, if it were true. But why are you angry when she doesn't fall for you, you're being selfless, remember? (Anger is often a human physiological reaction to being rejected. Note that she supposes this phenominon is a result of my own hypocrisy, and not a result of anything a woman ever does. -- NG) Are any of your attempted romantic relationships NOT based on this? (She seems to know what I am actually made-of and what my romantic relationships are actually based-on. Because I don't know it myself, apparently. How blessed I am to get a letter from a woman who knows just about everything! -- NG) I suspect few or none, yet you keep trying this approach. (Yes, I have to agree with the logical conclusion of this statment... treating a woman like she deserves decent treatment is a road to nowhere. -- NG) You buy into that attitude in that Offspring song "the more you suffer, the more it shows you really care". (There's a reason why this is in a song titled "Low Self-Esteem" -- a quality that is never attractive in either sex, except to the predators.) Things don't work-out the way you want them to, and you secretly sneer about how stupid and slutty and heartless these women are. It's amazing that you don't see the contradiction in simultaneously claiming how much you love and want to be with someone, and then talk about how much contempt you have for her. Contempt because she's not behaving in the manner in which you think she should behave. (How about contempt because women act like selfish, lying turds most of the time? Could that be it? Oh, no no no! A woman can never be in the wrong! How silly of me! -- NG)

Well, even an emotional basket case can get a sense of how someone REALLY feels about them. Ok, a bit of stereotyping maybe, but take it to heart: if there's one thing women are good at, it's sensing when a man is lying. (Even if this isn't true, you should behave like it is and never lie.) (Heh, a woman can't stop lying any more than she can stop breathing. Yet men have to be honest. -- NG) Any type of relationship you attempt with this false "nice guy" act is going to be based on dishonesty. Being honest is the only thing that guys have going for them if they don't have the looks, physique, money, or power that superficially attract women. (Yes, honesty is important to a woman... but only when it comes from the man and not from herself, that is to say. I imagine this is because a woman wants to be able to inspect the man's life to uncover any possible attempt to fake his way through fulfilling whatever demands she's set-up for him to fulfill. Naturally, she feels the man has to accept whatever lies the woman feels like dishing-out, because that's one of her demands on him. -- NG) Think about it this way... If you throw away your honesty, what do you really have left? (Oh, come on! Guys: how many times have you heard women say that every guy they've slept with turned-out to be a total liar? This is not because all men are liars, it's because women make it so that men NEED to lie in order to get laid! The guy who tells the woman what she wants to hear will always get chosen for sex over the guy who is honest and boring! Women can be so damn stupid sometimes! -- NG) When she says "I wish I could meet a nice guy like you" she knows you're there, what she really means is "I appreciate your trying to be nice, but I am not interested in you, and if you were smart, you'd realize that I will probably NEVER be interested in you". The persistant and patronizing "Nice Guy" interpretation: "I'm really stupid and haven't noticed you are available to me yet, sooner or later though I will discover that you're the one for me, so keep doing what you're doing."

There are a lot of messed up people in this world, both men and women, (I suppose she thinks this includes me? -- NG) but the great majority of people at heart are decent human beings. We all behave poorly towards one another at times, out of fear, out of habit, or because we haven't conceived of any other way to be. Like with you "Nice Guys", your shtick doesn't really work very well but it's what you'll keep doing until the resulting failure gets hammered into your head a zillion times. It's just a shame that you don't realize that your romantic overtures fail as a result of your own behavior. (That's right... only when I become an abusive batterer will a woman find me truly alluring. Laff! -- NG) Instead you conclude that "women suck".

Oh wait, you're trying to weasel out of total misogyny by qualifying with that "mostly". (Homer Simpson once said: weaseling is what separates humans from animals... except the weasel. -- NG) I'm sure that somewhere in there, you've branched off your romantic life and into the same old arguments (some valid, some not) about feminism being a plot to castrate all men. (I wonder what arguments I've used which aren't valid? She oddly omits this info. I'd really be interested in knowing, so I can demolish whatever her counter-argument might be. -- NG) But why not just be honest and retitle as "Women with whom I desire to have sex and/or a romantic relationship suck".

Being bitter and venting your frustration can be fun and a relief, but dwelling on and spreading that bitterness isn't very helpful. It'd be better for you to try to be aware of how you act and change the things that you don't like and that don't work. And really, I know it's tough to change your mental outlook, but try to keep in mind that there's a big difference between wanting to be with someone because you love them, and wanting to be with someone because you don't want to be alone. Also keep in mind that staying in the same pattern of behavior is usually going to keep giving you the same results. The stable, genuinely nice women who you should be wanting to meet don't need a servant and don't want some phony's shoulder to cry on all the time.

It just occurred to me... Am I trying to fix you? Oops, sorry! I hate it when guys try to do that to me :) (What's a fifty-cent word for the opposite of 'non-sarcastic aptness'? I'm not sure if there is such an antonym, but I think I just read an example of it. -- NG)

p.s. I wrote this last night, but held off sending it until I could re-read it with a fresh eye. A few more words...

Nice Guy "Friend": Is this supposed to make me feel bad or guilty over how I've "mistreated" you? We've already had some words about the status of our friendship, and I'm certain this marks the point where you've crossed the line from pretending to be my friend, to expressing your hostility. (Yes, HE must be the one with all the problems and it has NOTHING to do with her sneering, holier-than-thou personality. Once again, women always assume that it must be the man who has all the personal issues. -- NG) I've received your message loud and clear. Now (again) hear mine: my emotions are my own, you can't control them, and I AM NOT INTERESTED. Stop now before you get yourself into trouble. (Translation: 'stop now before I falsely accuse you of stalking me. The police will be on my side, not yours.' -- NG)

NiceGuy Web: I acknowledge that I am probably being quite inaccurate about you and your personal history, for I haven't read very deeply into your site beyond the first few links and some of your reader responses and replies. No offense is intended by any generalization that I may have made about your "Nice Guy-ism", at least none beyond what I would give to anyone who proclaims to the world that "Women Suck". (Touché. I just love thin mock-deference. -- NG)

Oh and by the way, Ally McBeal (the character and the show) was originally created by and written mostly by men. So whatever Hollywood generated fantasy about feminism in America that some dude in Poland is seeing in this show and buying into, try to keep in mind: it's not real -- some man made it up. (Well, she's blatantly ignoring the fact that many a female writer has contributed to Ally. I'd say it's a bigger fallacy that so much openly sexual behavior would be going-on between partners of the same law-firm. Too many potential harassment suits there and it's absolutely unprofessional. On the same topic: a very sweet and intelligent Chinese female-friend of mine who's lived in the U.S. for 3 years said to me the other day: 'I saw Ally McBeal for the first time last week... *Shakes head confusedly* Do women really behave like that in America?' I responded with 'Well, American women don't think so, as if that's somehow a reliable indicator...' Heh- and not nearly all American women look as poorly-nourished as the main character. -- NG)

Anyway, after reading what she sent me, it's safe for us to assume one of two things. Either this woman is:

1. The type of woman who feels the need to prove her intelligence by running-around and rubbing everyone's faces in it due to her own deep-set insecurities or...

2. The type of woman who feels that dopey males are perpetually trying to disprove the inadequacy of their manhood in the face of a fiery and strong "real" woman such as her brilliant self.

Either way, I'm certain she could brighten-up any party... by leaving it. (That's in case you're wondering why I opted to be more brusque than normal...)

My Reply:

I wrote a response with the title: "Nay, it's better to hate those who keep making-up the unfair rules..."

>Hi there!

Thank you for writing your disfigured attempt at poignancy.

>One of my male "friends" sent me an email with your website address, as one of those pointed passive-aggressive gestures.

Well, at least you're not being judgmental about him in the slightest. It also sounds a bit like he's not your friend for much longer... it never fails to amaze me how fragile and shallow friendships can be whenever a woman is involved. Something tells me that he was probably a "friend" until he decided not to unquestioningly absorb any more bullshit from you. (Just an impression I've gotten from the rather condescending, know-it-all tone in which you regurgitate your self-righteousness to multiple people at once. Just an observation.)

>Since he's launching himself into the same type of twisted "I'm a nice guy, women suck" thing going on that you do, you're both receiving this.

Twisted? Arguably. But then again, I might just be telling unpleasant truths. And perhaps it might behoove you to not involve me in your personal grudges.

>I don't know you, NiceGuy of webpage, so some of my observations may not be accurate,

Good, therefore, I expect that you'd want to read a bit more in order to make a better-informed judgment. You might be jumping the gun a bit.

>but I do know YOU, "Nice Guy Friend", and since your thinking seems to have so much in common, I'll treat you both as though you are the same. It makes things nice and simple to lump completely different people into the same convenient category.

Oh, I wouldn't know anything about doing that sort of thing. Grin. And I in no way bear any responsibility for what he may have done.

>The one criticism that I didn't addressed in the webpage (maybe it's the number 11 criticism that didn't make it to the top 10 list, or maybe you just twisted number 8 around to be something more palatable to you)

Just to review: number eight is me making the wacko suggestion that *I* am not necessarily the problem when I'm facing people who choose to behave like self-absorbed, lying, hypocritical, whining lunatics. Naturally, you suggest that I am necessarily to blame for a woman's inherent shallowness and narcissism (but frankly, I don't see how that's possible.)

>is that you're not really what you claim to be. You're not a "nice guy".

Heh, if that was true, I'd be getting laid a lot more often. So I think that fact pretty much proves your smarmy barb to be incorrect.
But you didn't ask yourself the $64,000 question: is it that I'm not nice because I'm an awful person, or is it that I'm not nice for simply daring to illustrate that women tend to behave in ways which they wouldn't tolerate from men? In your mind, a 'nice guy' should absorb all the mistreatment and neglect that you dish-out every day of the week. So you're right, I'm not nice. If I want to be truly nice, I should just shut my mouth and let women go-on being the contemptful shrews they've always been.

>Oh, I don't mean that you're "not nice" in the obvious way that you've already responded to. Like, you don't kick dogs or push old ladies down stairs, and I'm sure you're the kind of guy who stands on the bus so the pregnant lady can sit down. So you're not an evil bastard, good for you.

Well, it's good to not be an evil bastard because that means I'm better-accepted by friends and family. On the other hand, women choose not to lust after men who aren't evil bastards. So, it's truly a mixed blessing of dubious comfort.

>I mean that your type of "nice" isn't the result of thinking people should treat each other well. Maybe you DO feel that way, but not towards women with whom you desire a romantic relationship. Your type of being "nice" to such women has a string attached. Your "nice" isn't real, it's a type of manipulation.

Riiiiight. Expecting reciprocity and civility from a woman is a type of manipulation. Oookay.
If you think creatively about it, ANY sort of human action can be misconstrued to have a selfish reason behind it. For instance, if I run-in to a burning building to save a puppy, you can merely retort 'oh, you're just trying to weasel praise from bystanders.'
Your belief that my behavior is actually some sort of disguised manipulation is little more than preachy innuendo on your part. I hereby dismiss it with a 'wanking' motion.

>You describe yourself as trying to be submissive and to behave in a way you think a woman wants, but at heart, you don't really care about the woman, you care about making her love and want you. You want a puppet woman.

Puppet? Hardly. That kind of relationship would be no fun at all, I think. I like to interact with humans much better than I do with computers (how many geeks can make that claim?) Speaking of puppets...
On the flip side of the coin: I've observed that most wives treat their husbands little better than 15th-century Belorussian serfs and little worse than draft animals. Women regard men either as creatures worthy of contempt or (rarely) creatures worthy of adoration, but never as human beings. And you know it's true.

>By acting a certain way, you should be able to control how she responds, in the same way that you can control a computer or your vcr. (Take note, this is one of the top reasons why even computer geek girls often avoid dating computer geek boys.)

No, at this point I have to honestly say that you're totally and utterly clueless about me and how I expect a woman to behave. Perhaps you need to read a few more of my writings? The type of relationship you've described would get pretty boring very quickly.

>And worse, it's not that you want THIS woman to love and want you, it's that you want ANY woman.

Hmm, no... specifically, it'd be more accurate to say that I don't want an American woman because they have a proven track record of being man-hating, divorce-initiating harridans with absolutely no conception of justice or fairness.

>It doesn't really matter who it is, until through happenstance, you happen to get one, and discover, "oh, that's not really who I was looking for".

I could be fairly accused of doing that, but then again isn't that how dating is done by pretty much everybody? I've merely reached the conclusion that women largely aren't anywhere as angelic and wonderful as they like to pretend to be. Quite the opposite, in fact.

>Well, guess what? If your scheme is to make women love you by making yourself an available floormat for them, don't be surprised if some of the women start walking on you. The amount of hostility I feel from you towards women is misdirected.

Ahh yes, women are blameless for how they behave. You must also think I should blame myself for the fact that women are responsible for countless examples of unfair treatment in society at large. And by the way: I'm also responsible for volcanoes, earthquakes and smallpox in case you're curious.

>Yes, I'd be angry too if someone walked all over me, but I think I would be more angry with myself for inviting that kind of abuse. I prefer to avoid people who are willing to walk on me, or if I have to associate with them, I make sure that I'm not lying on the ground while they're around. You, on the other hand, are chasing this type of person around offering yourselves to them in the goal to prove that if they weren't completely screwed up, that they'd logically have to conclude that you're worthy of their love (or at least, their desire). Why are you so surprised that this isn't how things turn out most of the time? When's the last time you fell passionately in love with a rug?

So, if I try to make a woman happy, I'm a rug? Gee, here I was thinking that I wasn't being a selfish bastard by actually thinking about the needs of my partner. I guess it's folly to ever consider her feelings, eh? I'm slowly learning this to be true.

>Your relationships with women are based around being the loving and supportive male friend who can help her take care of all her problems. That'd be very noble and selfless of you, if it were true.

You are correct, it's *not* true. I give good treatment in hopes that she'll continue the cycle by returning the favor. Silly me for thinking that a female is capable of volunteering something that doesn't fall under the categories of 'scorn', 'duplicity' or 'complaint'.

>But why are you angry when she doesn't fall for you, you're being selfless, remember? Are any of your attempted romantic relationships NOT based on this?

I kind of expected a woman to fall for me because of who I am and my desire to put effort into creating a caring and wholesome relationship. Now I know: a woman will never truly be captivated by someone who isn't rich or who won't treat them like abject crap at least once a week.

>I suspect few or none, yet you keep trying this approach. You buy into that attitude in that Offspring song "the more you suffer, the more it shows you really care". (There's a reason why this is in a song titled "Low Self-Esteem" -- a quality that is never attractive in either sex, except to the predators.)

Oh, I have a great self-esteem. At the same time, I still recognize that I have areas in which I can improve myself. (How many women can claim both without lying through her teeth?)

>Things don't work out the way you want them to, and you secretly sneer about how stupid and slutty and heartless these women are. It's amazing that you don't see the contradiction in simultaneously claiming how much you love and want to be with someone, and then talk about how much contempt you have for her.

There's no contradiction in loving the sinner but hating the sin... but I can't honestly say a woman is totally blameless for her sins, either. Hah, well, maybe they actually deserve a little disdain because of their actions? Ever stop to think about that instead of immediately absolving her of all responsibility?

>Contempt because she's not behaving in the manner in which you think she should behave.

What, you mean behaving in a civil and reciprocal manner? That's a ridiculous expectation? Hmm, it seems that maybe you're right. Sad, innit?

>Well, even an emotional basket case can get a sense of how someone REALLY feels about them. Ok, a bit of stereotyping maybe, but take it to heart: if there's one thing women are good at, it's sensing when a man is lying.

Hmm, no, I think it's more accurate to say that women project their own dishonesty onto others.

>(Even if this isn't true, you should behave like it is and never lie.)

I'll stop lying the instant she chooses to hear the truth and not throw things at me. Tell me: what incentive does a woman ever have to tell the truth, in your mind? Because she's born an angel? Oh, please!

>Any type of relationship you attempt with this false "nice guy" act is going to be based on dishonesty. Being honest is the only thing that guys have going for them if they don't have the looks, physique, money, or power that superficially attract women.

No, I've found that a woman can't stand listening to the truth if it's something she doesn't want to hear. If you say to your woman 'I think your new hairdo looks like you stuck your finger in an 110-volt socket', you'd better believe you'll be sleeping on the couch that night. Women can't stand honesty if it's even remotely critical of them. That's the main reason you've written me, obviously.

>Think about it this way... If you throw away your honesty, what do you really have left?

All my possessions and probably more lays. That aint so bad on the balance sheet.

>When she says "I wish I could meet a nice guy like you" she knows you're there, what she really means is "I appreciate your trying to be nice, but I am not interested in you, and if you were smart, you'd realize that I will probably NEVER be interested in you".

Gee, paragraphs ago, you mentioned the importance of honesty... isn't what you mentioned last paragraph an example of females giving false information?

>The persistant and patronizing "Nice Guy" interpretation: "I'm really stupid and haven't noticed you are available to me yet, sooner or later though I will discover that you're the one for me, so keep doing what you're doing."

Ahh, I see.. so the male has to be honest, the female can continue giving-off false messages. She's not responsible for making herself clear and the burden of correctly interpreting her fraudulent signals falls entirely on the male. Makes perfect sense: I think you're perfectly confirming why I think women suck.

>There are a lot of messed up people in this world, both men and women, but the great majority of people at heart are decent human beings.

Ahh, so you're a follower of the Chinese philosopher Mencius! I, myself tend to agree with Hsun-tzu who said that the great majority of people need guidelines on how to behave, because these rules won't naturally and spontaneously dawn on them. Both positions are debatable, but that of Hsun-Tzu sounds a bit less naïve.

>We all behave poorly towards one another at times, out of fear, out of habit, or because we haven't conceived of any other way to be. Like with you "Nice Guys", your shtick doesn't really work very well but it's what you'll keep doing until the resulting failure gets hammered into your head a zillion times. It's just a shame that you don't realize that your romantic overtures fail as a result of your own behavior. Instead you conclude that "women suck".

Ahh, yes, it MUST be something the man does in order to turn women off. So you're clearly choosing to remove all female accountability from the scenario (surprise, surprise!) and it has nothing to do with the selfish, exploitative, ever-changing and ridiculous expectations that women have of men. But think for a second that women ARE responsible for their actions and are not at the mercy of what a man does... After making attempts to treat women in ways which they claim they want to be treated, nice guys see women actively pursuing men who do precisely the opposite of what women say they want. And then we listen to those same women whine and complain about their sorry state when they've already been offered a clear alternative. And whenever they do luck up on a good man, they get bored and leave him.
What can one conclude from this simple and ubiquitous observation? That women are serial doers of things that are clearly contrary to their best interests. In short, that women suck... or that they're merely addicted to pathos and complaining, which isn't much better than sucking.

>Oh wait, you're trying to weasel out of total misogyny by qualifying with that "mostly".

'Weasel'? I don't know if I'd call it that. I think it's more accurate to say that I'm throwing a sop to those people who rightly told me that I make too many generalizations. Believe me, I'd LOVE to take-out the word "mostly".
Oh, and in defense of misogynists: a misogynist is merely a man who hates women just as much as a woman hates every other woman.

>I'm sure that somewhere in there, you've branched off your romantic life and into the same old arguments (some valid, some not) about feminism being a plot to castrate all men.

I didn't branch-off, it's quite apt if you think about it. Women behave unfairly in society, as they do in dating. The dating aspect is one piece of the entire pie: namely, that women suck.
And not 'castrate', but subjugate under the sham of female victimhood. There's a difference. I've given a dozen examples in which the women's movement is CLEARLY not based on what's fair and is CERTAINLY not about scaling-back those areas in which women jealously guard unfair amounts of power. I suggest you take an hour and read an interesting book available at http://www.rulymob.com. This is called "If Men Have All the Power, How Come Women Make All the Rules?" It is a very even-handed and somewhat humorous piece which succinctly illustrates the ways in which female behavior is patently unfair and oppressive. (And if you don't believe me when I say 'oppressive': this guy couldn't get his book into stores because publishers were afraid it might tick-off too many women. That's all the proof you need to show the kind of Orwellian censorship that women command. If it weren't for the I-net, this book would've been buried.) Oh, heck, I'll send you a copy attached to this email so you can't manufacture excuses to not get it. (And so I did. -- NG)

>But why not just be honest and retitle as "Women with whom I desire to have sex and/or a romantic relationship suck".

Because it wouldn't be true. The more accurate sentiment is reflected very accurately in the present title, thank you very much.

>Being bitter and venting your frustration can be fun and a relief, but dwelling on and spreading that bitterness isn't very helpful.

You got it backwards. Saying I'm disseminating bitterness is like saying that Exxon pumps oil into the ground. By no means am I causing bitterness: the bitterness caused by female bullshit is already out there, babe, and it has been for a looong time. I'm just enunciating what every male already knows so that guys who feel the way I do can say 'I'm NOT insane, other guys DO feel this way. Women DO shaft men all the time, and it's not cool.' (And maybe a few women might drop-by and self-reflect? That's a big maybe. It doesn't seem to have happened in your case.)

>It'd be better for you to try to be aware of how you act and change the things that you don't like and that don't work.

I've got a far better plan: I'm moving outside the U.S. where I hope to discover that women haven't forgotten how to be civil.

>And really, I know it's tough to change your mental outlook, but try to keep in mind that there's a big difference between wanting to be with someone because you love them, and wanting to be with someone because you don't want to be alone. Also keep in mind that staying in the same pattern of behavior is usually going to keep giving you the same results. The stable, genuinely nice women who you should be wanting to meet don't need a servant and don't want some phony's shoulder to cry on all the time.
It just occurred to me... Am I trying to fix you? Oops, sorry! I hate it when guys try to do that to me :)

You know... it seems that you are trying to fix me. I think you might better use a bit of effort to reflect a bit on how you can improve. I've noticed that women claim to see through every man on the planet, yet are totally unable to see inside themselves. It's actually quite pathetic, in a way.

>p.s. I wrote this last night, but held off sending it until I could re-read it with a fresh eye. A few more words...

>Nice Guy "Friend": Is this supposed to make me feel bad or guilty over how I've "mistreated" you? We've already had some words about the status of our friendship, and I'm certain this marks the point where you've crossed the line from pretending to be my friend, to expressing your hostility. I've received your message loud and clear. Now (again) hear mine: my emotions are my own, you can't control them, and I AM NOT INTERESTED. Stop now before you get yourself into trouble.

I think you might more accurately say that he doesn't have enough money to really get your juices flowing. I have a strong suspicion that's closer to the truth... that you're the type of woman who says 'if he makes less money than me, he's a loser and I won't consider him as a boyfriend.' If he was a publicly-known multi-millionaire, you'd probably be standing, weak-kneed, in a slippery little puddle before you could say 'no prenup.' Every woman has her price; getting into your panties is merely a matter of haggling over the cost.

>NiceGuy Web: I acknowledge that I am probably being quite inaccurate about you and your personal history, for I haven't read very deeply into your site beyond the first few links and some of your reader responses and replies. No offense is intended by any generalization that I may have made about your "Nice Guy-ism", at least none beyond what I would give to anyone who proclaims to the world that "Women Suck".

Heh, I suggest you read a bit more to gather a better-informed opinion about what I think. What I write is based on observations, and the most surprising thing is that a lot of the people (women AND men) who write me often AGREE with me. If I'm bitter about anything, it's the fact that women just won't admit that they themselves are highly self-absorbed, exploitative and unfair; they sit-back and wait for enough men to proposition them until one comes-along who meets all of her conflicting, ever-shifting conditions. They do their best to look attractive, yet punish men for being attracted. And in the meantime, they blame the rejected men for behavior that accompanies rejection.
(Naturally, it won't ever occur to her that this last statement might apply to herself. -- NG)

Oh, and just for the record: there IS good buried deep-down in most women: they just have to work a bit harder in order to cultivate it because it doesn't flow naturally out the vagina.

>Oh and by the way, Ally McBeal (the character and the show) was originally created by and written mostly by men. So whatever Hollywood generated fantasy about feminism in America that some dude in Poland is seeing in this show and buying into, try to keep in mind: it's not real -- some man made it up.

Yes, it was largely made by men- FEMINIST men. The first few episodes, it was clear that pretty much all of the characters are poor excuses for human beings but the females get FAR more sympathetic portrayals. Surely, that's not by accident considering that the intended audience was and is mostly female. And is it truly not real, or is it merely a caricaturized version of reality? It's truly one of those philosophical questions about art imitating life or vice-versa.

Thank you for writing. And in future, I suggest that you scrutinize the labels on your prescription bottles to ensure that you take the proper dosages. -- NG

(Oh, I said "feminist men" up there referring to the fact that many of the male creators of Ally did so with the idea of pandering to women viewers. In short: they knew that the easiest way to win a female audience is by making men look like boobs and they were all-too willing to do so. Even though I accidentally misused the word 'smarmy' in hindsight, I had a lot of fun writing that response. Can you tell? -- NG)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"...nurturing men are vulnerable not only because they treat women as equals, but because most women don't even think of or treat them like real men. ... A 'nice guy' is to women what the virginal whore is to men -- fantasy. Hence, nice guys have good reason to fear women..." -- Rod Van Mechelen.

Back to Home