Is this negative "nice guy" stereotype actually a thing?

[Ice Car]

Don't be nice to get stuff, and then get angry when you don't get said stuff.

That's quite human, though. I mean the "being upset about not getting something you want". Hardly anyone's a true stoic. I mean, sure, some people handle their disappointments worse than others, but you can't fault them for being disappointed if life didn't turn out the way they hoped it would have.

It's still that underlying issue of entitlement though that I want to stop. I mean, it's fine if you get angry or distressed, but being nice does not guarantee you that thing. Unless you're being nice and get absolutely rotten and unfair treatment, I don't see how you could logically maintain your position as a selfless, nice person if you get angry out of some form of entitlement.

I use that word a lot. Entitlement. It's like you can tell that I hate it when people feel like they deserve something they don't at all or something. :/

 

[Vegosiux]

It's still that underlying issue of entitlement though that I want to stop.

Not happening, unless people start somehow being born experienced when it comes to the entire "dating" thing...there'll always be people who'll bungle around, and some of them are going to be obnoxious about it.

(You don't have to like it, of course. I don't, either, but I just don't see it stopping anytime soon)

I mean, it's fine if you get angry or distressed, but being nice does not guarantee you that thing. Unless you're being nice and get absolutely rotten and unfair treatment, I don't see how you could logically maintain your position as a selfless, nice person if you get angry out of some form of entitlement.

Nothing is ever guaranteed except for death and taxes, and the Irish blaming the English for all their problems, though. Though I think everyone's entitled to going "Jeez, I really hoped that'd have gone differently". As long as they move on from it in a reasonable manner that is.

I use that word a lot. Entitlement. It's like you can tell that I hate it when people feel like they deserve something they don't at all or something. :/

Now that I think of it...When you really want something, do you even think about whether or not you deserve it? Or do you just want it, have a desire, and that's all there is?

 

[EclipseoftheDarkSun]

The girl isn't *just* looking for someone "nice". That's good enough for a neighbour or a random person on the street. She's looking for someone who can do more than what is effectively begging for sex. Ie, you need to be able to stand up for yourself (self-respect - i.e. you don't pressure her for sex, revealing weakness as a result), influence other people, provide for a family reliably, at least when she needs support and be honest and interested in her.

On that one, though, where is the line between "influencing" other people and "manipulating" them? It looks like the same thing under a different label, getting people to do something you want them to do, with a lesser regard to whether or not they wanted to do it.

Oh, and pulling a pocket knife for a bullet wound is a terrible analogy. Trying to drag the bullet out is literally the worst thing you can do, and everyone can stop the bleeding (including the guy who "needs a doctor"; hope he did call 911 at least), assuming they did some basic first aid course. So in that scenario, not only is the "nice guy" a complete and utter moron who has no clue what he's doing, the guy screaming at him is also a loser because he's apparently failing to do something pretty much everyone should be able to do but sees it as more fitting to waste time on some random fool than actually doing something about the bleeding.

I actually quite liked the article for how cynical it is, mind, but Cracked isn't a site I'd opt to take life advice from ^^

Well, I didn't mean outright manipulation, I meant more along the lines of being someone respected in society, who's able to make friends and speak up for himself and others, as opposed to a wallflower. Able to influence people in terms of being listened to when they make good points, rather than dismissed as a loser. Well, you might have a good point about the quality of the analogy

Also, I'm not entirely sold on the message from that scene in Glengarry Glen Ross, since when taken in context with the entire film, this leads to genuinely corrupt behavior. And economics is about more than ruthless salesmanship. The cracked article made me think, along with that blog, but it's not like I've internalized the ideas wholesale

 

[Smeatza]

I think it's both, honestly. People aren't fond of niceness, if it's faked or clearly done for selfish reasons. The stereotype isn't a negative one towards people who are genuinely nice and don't hold ill will towards others for not giving anything back to them, it's to the other people that use it as a one-way ticket to the sac.

Exactly, the "nice guy" stereotype is someone who pretends to be nice because they want sex or romance.
In reality there are very little to no people who fit this stereotype exactly, like all stereotypes.

Like, seriously. Be nice to be nice. Don't be nice to get stuff, and then get angry when you don't get said stuff. That's nasty and it's you that's making the world a worse place.

Well I'm nice because it feels good so it matters little to me personally.
But not all people are as balanced or moral as you might want.
If "do unto others" causes a bunch of people to be nice to others, who otherwise wouldn't, then I would not want to attach a negative, barely fitting stereotype to that principle.

 

[MrMan999]

To me, The "Nice Guy" stereotype is less about a sociopath just trying to get laid and more some poor schmuck who has never really been in a relationship and is socially awkward. Usually they grow out of it by the end of college. The problem starts when they don't grow out of it.

 

[Riot3000]

Don't be nice to get stuff, and then get angry when you don't get said stuff.

That's quite human, though. I mean the "being upset about not getting something you want". Hardly anyone's a true stoic. I mean, sure, some people handle their disappointments worse than others, but you can't fault them for being disappointed if life didn't turn out the way they hoped it would have.

It's still that underlying issue of entitlement though that I want to stop. I mean, it's fine if you get angry or distressed, but being nice does not guarantee you that thing. Unless you're being nice and get absolutely rotten and unfair treatment, I don't see how you could logically maintain your position as a selfless, nice person if you get angry out of some form of entitlement.

I use that word a lot. Entitlement. It's like you can tell that I hate it when people feel like they deserve something they don't at all or something. :/

I think the entitlement line is way overplayed. Like vegio they had a desire to get something but they are upset maybe in the worse way possible about it but did that means they thought they deserved it? That is call that unless mind reading ability is made is a personal judgment call and even if many cosign to it does not make externally valid.

I mean if we run with the entitlement angle here then every gal who expects guys to approach them is probably just as entitled or more so than the "nice guys" we are rallying against. But things are more complex than platitudes and anecdotes on internet forums.

No stereotypes are actually things. They are sets of generalised characteristics that have absoulutely no merit in the real world.

"It has no material value, or worth, so it does not exist"

u wot m8

Intangible things like that tend to have that nature. Some of these intangible concepts don't have any purpose. They're arbitrary, and they have no bearing on anything. That does not mean they don't exist. Even if stereotypes don't matter [to you], it's still a widespread concept that is constantly being perpetuated and it affects a lot of people. Stereotyping is indeed a thing. An intangible, yet omnipresent, and all-encompassing, thing.

I be careful with that kind of reasoning because if so then the whole "gals only want jerks" hold just as much validity as the "entitled nice guy" thing. In fact things like "guys only want sex" or "women are gold diggers" are pretty big stereotypes themselves and while I know your comment was referring to the topic at hand that is a pretty major pandor box that does not need to opened.

I mean conflating or downgrading stereotypes that we agree or disagree with our cognition and bias is very human thing to do but it doesn't hurt to take a step back sometimes.

 

[Pogilrup]

Snip

It was nice for a while, but then it dived into Glurge territory.

There are some worrying implications that I cannot unsee after reading this story.

 

[generals3]

Again, I simply cannot understand how a word containing friendship - which, trust me, is harder to find than sexual fulfilment - is considered something negative.

It's because of the context in which it is used. It's not trying to imply friendship is negative however it does imply that if you want more than friendship than just having friendship is bad. To give a little analogy, imagine you always wanted a job in finance but due to circumstances end up with one in marketing. You'll probably not be that happy with your job. That doesn't mean a job in marketing sucks, it just sucks for you because that's not what you wanted.

 

[Riot3000]

snip

You know well exactly how this works he liked on a different level than she liked him. Sometimes you stay friends sometimes you don't both are perfectly valid. It is not the stupid narrow definition you got running in your head so there is no high ground to be won. Also dbag is pretty broad and who potshots at emos anymore.

All that other stuff was just one big ball of stereotypes and generalizations there is really nothing make out of that. Apparently their are only "interesting" "well rounded" which pretty much just words at this point because they are as empty as the "nice guy" your rallying against. That overblown hyperbole is mostly for sake that making any substantive point.


Plus no one is talking about job offers that seems out of left field and again "interesting" is a word at this point one person interesting is another person bore and vice versa. I still don't see a difference you are just saying your working for womens attention the wrong way. And your view is as delusional as the "nice guys" you go on about because all the guys I see with average cars, living in apartments and gasp no college degree are doing just fine with women. Social dictation be damned it is not as strong as you make it out to be.




Neither one of your examples would do any good.. While narcissistic is too strong of word in retrospect I apologize for that but your words just come off as empty platitudes that comes off more self serving gratification than anything else.




If that whole thing about sexual fulfilment being harder to find than friendship is from your personal experience then that is perfectly valid view but if you are trying to apply this as the norm of your fellow "interesting" "well-rounded" guys and gals in arms then your mileage is not going vary that much life tends to be a socket wrench like that.

Now if you excuse I will friendzone unironically its cold in the midwest and torches will keep me warm.

 

[echolight]

One thing I learned about some women is that they want a man; who has a good job and money to spend, whose not a doormat, calm and collective..etc. Every woman is different just as every man is different. Most men don't care if the woman they want is employed or not whereas women do care if the guy does have a job. If a woman wants to be treated like garbage then she will be very rude or play head games.

I want a woman that respects herself, kind to others, honest, faithful, etc. I diffidently don't want some trashy, judgmental Bi Trans Canada Highway that takes advantage of people.

Just be yourself and don't attempt to impress a woman to like you. If she don't like you for who you are then she's not worth the time of day!

 

[DodgyOne]

Also that brain fart about how women are not "prizes to be won" yet you go on a diatribe for guys to work out, get a nice car, a college degree, do "interesting" thing to deserve the attention of women. You expect guys to respect the agency of women and that they are human beings which is makes perfect sense then tell them they have make themselves "deserving" of their attention while mocking guys who go out their way to get women. All I got out of that was ladies are interesting by default guys make yourself something which is just asinine

And it would be, if that had been my intended meaning. Let me explain: the problem with this whole debate is that some blokes want to attract partners by what they DO, when they should be doing so by what they ARE - namely, a well-rounded and interesting person. Helping Michelle from biology with her homework does not entitle you to make out with her, because affection is not a reward for certain actions. The whole point with agency is that just like men seek out women who are attractive to them because they are good looking, funny, smart, confident, wealthy, famous etc - ie who have something to offer - SO DO WOMEN. However, social norms dictate that the #1 category which makes women attractive is, in fact, physical beauty. Those girls whose affections the "nice guys" crave? They are sort of "interesting by default" because I sincerely doubt that any of them look like Roseanne Barr.

I wonder if some of those "nice guys" that are being railed against are actually following this advice.....