Overcoming "Niceguy-itus" Series
By John Russell
Article 1 - "Nice" Doesn't Always Mean "Moral"
There are some men who angrily write in here (and at other sites), or
complain to me in person that they are overlooked sexually because they
are so-o-o-o nice. I used to feel that way, so I can attest that it's
not hopeless if you want to grow out of it.
Those men feel being "nice" makes them BETTER men than those men who
might find themselves at odds with their wives, girlfriends, or society
sometimes. They seem to have the behavior termed "nice" confused with
ethics, morality, love, and true graciousness; and when they are told by
some women they are "too nice" to be sexually attractive they almost
always console their wounded hearts by donning the mantle of the saints
and martyrs being misunderstood and under-appreciated in some sick sad
world of women who love abuse.
They couldn't be more wrong, being "nice" has nothing to do with ethics
or morality in any logical sense as defined in any of the major
religions (or Ethical Humanism), I know this because I stopped being
"nice" years ago and my moral and religious convictions have actually
become more intense. Confused? Only if you think that the world
consists of only "nice" men and wife-beating jerks as the polarity of
"good and evil", but I hope to clarify that it really isn't that way.
If you think that when you stop being nice, you have to be a selfish
jerk, think again and read on. There doesn't need to be any moral
compromise, in fact there will be LESS moral compromise if you give up
being "nice".
First, lets look into the true definition of the word "nice" so that
there isn't any confusion of what people really mean when they call you
nice:
The original meaning of the word "nice" meant being precise or exact to
fit something else, it had no moral quality. In time colloquial forces
in the late Victorian era made it common to misuse the word to
abbrevaite
appreciation for something that was pleasing because it was harmonious.
For instance, a "nice" day was a day that was enjoyable because it was
precisely fitting what could be considered harmony to human comfort in
terms of moderate temperature, abundant sunlight illumination, and low
humidity.
Eventually it was a term applied to people, but it never lost the
implied original meaning of being an exact or harmonious fit. In the
sexist society of that Victorian era, a "nice" woman was one with a
personality subserviant enough that she made herself an exact fit to
her husband. Victorian society was also caste oriented, a man might be
referred to as "nice" by a another man of higher social station who
found him similarly dependible, selfless, and in accordance with his
dictates. So you might hear a man called "nice" if he is a shop clerk,
shoe shiner, or cab driver. However, you wouldn't have a man called
"nice" if he were a competant and moral prime minister, religious
authority, CEO, entepreneur, thinker, individualist, or any free man...
other terms would be used expressing their positive qualities without
the implication subserviance such as "noble", "gallant", "righteous",
"dynamic", and "heroic" even if they veiw their authority with humility
as a form of service to humanity or to God.
So, when you are called nice, or when you pride yourself on being nice,
the quality you are claimingto embody is that you are a person who makes
yourself the exact fit to harmonize with the wishes and needs of others
in
total subserviance. You do not want disharmony at any expense, or to
offend people, at all times you keep up the appearence of not being
contentious. I have noticed that men who are insecure of their charisma,
income level, lack of talent (or failure to implement their talents
-especially among the lazy), that they pride themselves on being "nice".
Though the effort of pleasing people can sometimes be exhausting, the
endeavor is more or less risk-free than any other so one need not develop
qualities such as bravery or responsibility in the pursuit of being nice.
It is almost to take pride in the accomplishment of not standing in
anyone's way or interfering with anything, "I didn't make waves in my life
ever, why can't the women find me sexy?".
Is that moral? Is that something to be proud of?
Is that an expression of love?
I doubt it. There are times when a moral person should seek harmony and
resolution with people, but with a moral person it is not always
desireable to be a people-pleaser. If Jesus were "nice" he'd be worried
about offending the Pharasees, he wouldn't have been crucified, and he
probably wouldn't have even been important enough for either their esteem
much less their contempt. I doubt we could think of him as much of a
savior if such were the case. Same goes for Martin Luther King and others
like him, what he did and said was moral, and standing up for what was
moral offended some people and brought out many angry reactions against
him. If he would have tried to flatter, water down his stance, and avoid
offending those who were full of shit in the name of being "nice" some
people today would probably still be riding in the back of the bus in
Birmingham.
On the contrary, "nice" people find themselves going along with and
doing horrible things, because they want to "fit in" and do not want
to offend people. For instance, when racists say offensive things, I
have seen nice
people who disagree remain silent or pretend to go along so as not to
embarass the racist speaking or themselves for contending with it. Some of
the testemony of Nazis on trial for war crimes held in Nuremburg revealed
men with the mentality of automaton clerks who's defense was that they
were just following orders; and that they were well liked in their
community, supposedly gentle family men, men who did "nothing wrong" of
their own accord. Some claimed that if they refused to obey orders, they
might lose face, position, they'd be inconvenienced or perhaps be jailed
themselves. The desire to "fit" made them so spineless that even though
they must have known that gassing people to death was wrong, the did it
because they were more worried about approval from their superiors and
community and decided that their moral objections would never be
understood. So, the desire to be "nice" and the desire to be "moral" can
go into direct opposition with one another.
So "Nice" is not moral, "nice" is Orwellian style immasculation, "exact
fits" harmonious with other people are only valuable traits to have in a
society which is totalitarian. In our case (the western democracies), the
only part of our relatively free society where this trait is valued is in
low paying jobs where a spine and facility of decision and leadership is
not needed, only obediance. This is particularly in jobs where managment
underpays, bullies, or even violates labor law regularly. A moral person
won't stand for that treatment and find a better place to work, only a
"nice" person will keep jumping through hoops and whining about how they
are not appreciated but be resigned to the illusion of job security in
their one "skill" of being willing to take abuse.
Think guys: you don't have to be a woman to understand that if you choose
to live like a passive drone in a "free" society where you don't have to
be a drone, you aren't sexy. It doesn't make you a better person that you
are passive, just a coward. There are many fowl vices a man could have and
still be attractive in spite of it, but the vice of not being able to take
a stand is to be made utterly worthless to all except those who enjoy
status and power at the expense of you and other men (and women) like you
for not claiming your own power and the responsibility and risk that goes
with it.
If you have read the articles that the "Heartless Bitches" have made
against "nice men" it is clear that it is not their intent as feminists to
see that men are immasculated, either self-inflicted or by sociological
forces. To the contrary, it appears that when they encounter a man that
willingly embodies and flaunts the very qualities of subserviance and
passivity that women were once forced to adopt in archaic gender
stereotypes, it appears disgusting and a denial of true adulthood. Women
were once kept as perpetual children under sexism by their having to be
"nice" and obediant, it was never the intent of modern feminists to see
men become children. They want men to have their manhood on an EVEN
FOOTING of accountability and self-respect with stong and enlightened
womanhood.
Perhaps then "Heartless Bitches International" has gone beyond being
confined to a feminist movement to being an ADULTHOOD MOVEMENT for both
genders. The extreme spectrums of men fronting their testosterone like
they are God's gift to whores, or whining and crying for some woman to be
their permanent mommy and psychiatric nurse are in both cases men that do
not accept responsibility for adult behavior. HBI is just as rough on
daddy's girls, or nihilistic sluts for the same exact reason, so we can't
say that this is unfairly directed against men only. In the spirit of my
desire to help the cause of this "adulthood movement" I wish to
contribute a series of articles from a man's perspective to help some men
who are no longer satified with being "nice" and want be something more
than merely nice (as an alternative to getting bitter and becoming
something less than nice). If you are "nice guy" no longer happy playing
the martyr, the old defense mechanisms feel like a prison, and you want
out permanently this is the series for you.
Next Week: Article 2- How "nice men" are made, and when are they ready to
change.
|
