Male problems only ever come up as a counter-argument

[Eclipse Dragon]

there is another guy out there that holds it against himself, silently hating himself. If we had more open conversations we could help them (both of them) before they make a mistake that can't be taken back...

Funny enough a very popular question dating coaches and couples therapists get from women is "how do I get my man to share his feelings with me?"

Speaking from only my personal experience[footnote]which of course means very little to the larger picture[/footnote], I've dated both sides of the coin.

Both guys were/are nice, my ex though had very low self confidence and chose to vent his feelings to me. I had no problem with this, however, because of his low self confidence, the only thing he ever focused on was the bad in himself and I became his emotional crutch.

Again, I have no problem when a man I'm dating vents his feelings to me, I want to know everything about them as a person, that includes the more vulnerable side, I want to help him be the best he can be, to feel good about himself but in this situation, it wasn't inspiring because that's all there was, I was the only one who made him happy, I felt crushed under the pressure and started to feel bad about myself and trapped.

Predictably, despite all the nice things he did for me, this relationship was toxic and I needed to end it for my own personal health. Even though we continue to be friends, he doesn't understand where I come from in this situation and from time to time he tries again, shows jealousy toward my current BF, claims all his exes "friend-zoned" him. This behavior is leading me to push him even further out of my life.

---------------------------------
Conversely, my current BF has a high degree of self confidence and at times he seems so laid back, we could be on the verge of a zombie apocalypse and he'd be "ehhh it's fine". I know that he probably feels anxiety, but he's told me himself that he tries not to think about it (though he does share with me when something majorly devastating happens). I believe though if he did decide to start telling me about his everyday frustrations, that the relationship wouldn't become what the one above was and we might grow closer for it. He has more in his life that makes him happy and secure, friends, family, a stable source of income, while the ex above does not, and uses his unfortunate situation as a means to call women "shallow" and claim they won't date him because women only date men with money, ext.

I don't know what point I was trying to make here, I guess perhaps offering an idea of how exactly a Nice Guy (TM) is born.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Because let's be honest: sex is the dividing line between friend and girlfriend in this scenario. You weren't hoping to build a life together in high school and intimacy can be a part of platonic friendship so... Yeah.

Except it's not the dividing line. Couples can be abstinate, friends can fuck(though that's understandably shaky ground).

What we're really talking about here is that young people are stupid, and this really is a young person problem for the most part. I find it baffling that the internet community seems to need a rule on this. This "Nice guy TM" thing is fucking stupid. It's really not a gender issue, it's a dumb issue. There are girls who think being nice is all that's required, and there are guys who are oblivious to what their behaviour communicates/inspires(and vice-versa). These are scenarios where the inexperience of both parties is on display. It's not evil, it's just unfortunate.

There are of course variations on this where the "oblivious" party isn't actually oblivious. That's people being people. The strong can prey on the weak.

Expecting inexperienced people to be totally self-aware in these situations is a losing battle. They don't have the tools. Trending memes that paint either gender as the villain/victim aren't going to help. It's just more inappropriate and misguided blaming and shaming, when what would actually be helpful is a dose of reality... A little education coming from an appropriate source (meaning not gender-political propaganda on the internet).

 

[Dragonlayer]

Because, as was proven in this thread within thirty minutes of the original post, nobody cares in the slightest about problems and solutions in any social justice issue online, they just want to butt heads with the eternal opposition and win arguments.

Not really. I remember see just the opposite on this sight a few times in fact. Someone made a thread about a guy having to deal with false rape claims, and every other comment was about how actual rape is more common. Someone talked about how there's no battered men's shelters every replay to that guy was about how battered women's shelters are more important.

My guess is that you're looking for that, and you know what they say? Life is like a box of chocolates you're only going to remember the taste of coconut.

Which goes with my point quite nicely. Also, for all the presumably male individuals who do complain on this site about male problems, its very rare for an actual male problem help thread to appear and when it does, it lasts for maybe two, three pages at best. Of course, that could be because everyone goes into those threads simply to say "NU UH! MY SIDE HAS IT WORSE!".

I was reading a book once that went though this one experiment that coined the term "illusion of asymmetric insight." Witch I think is a very good term for what exactly is going on here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusion_of_asymmetric_insight

That will give you a quick overview of what I'm talking about. Basically when two groups interact they assume they know the other side better then the other side knows themselves. People don't just see the "other side" as being inferior, they need it go be inferior. Whatever people will be people, the only thing I can do is try not to get involved.

That sounds dead on for these conversations, and not just male problems but any and all social justice "discussion" on the internet (such a generous term for "Shit flinging bitching match"). Note that in every single one of these "debates", people will demand evidence to meet their impossible standards of argumentation, then when it is provided they will dismiss it out of hand because they know better - so illusion of asymmetric insight to a tee.

For the best really, I never participate myself, bar the occasional indulgent "Both of you are equally awful" comment.

 

[Dazzle Novak]

snip

We're talking about a presumed adult (he speaks about high school in the past tense) wallowing in "nice guy" nonsense. This isn't people ganging up on some awkward youth; it's explaining the situation to a grown man who apparently hasn't learned from it or developed any self-awareness since. There's a point where such obliviousness becomes attitudinal and therefore assholish.

I can pity someone for ill-luck in matters of love while also noting they've developed a toxic worldview as a defense-mechanism because of said bad luck/ unwillingness to self-evaluate. Lastly, you lose whatever sympathy points you have when you lash out. That meme is making fun of guys who post misogynistic rants online then wonder why nice chaps like them have no luck with the ladies. The meme is not shaming any and everyone who has trouble getting a date.

You're right, sex isn't some concrete dividing line, but I think it's fair to say if he was already hanging around these girls the only thing that would change by them dating would be sex or physical contact farther back on the continuum.

This is the part where I'm dismissing you, but the fact you, in an earlier post, cite MGTOW as a positive means of addressing male issue when it's at best "giving up" and more usually hysterically histrionic misogyny, I suspect our opinions on the issue may be too far apart to bridge the gap.

 

[Something Amyss]

A lot of shit is a go-to insult on the internet, and I don't think that changes what I said. The stigma of being something arises from being that thing, not from people randomly and anonymously calling you names.

Those go-to insults derive from things which are stigmatised. That's the whole point. "Virgin" only has teeth because being a virgin is bad (unless you're a girl, then it's mandatory or you're a slut/whore/whatever) according to society. "******" only has teeth because because being gay is bad (unless you're a girl, in which case it's only bad when you turn guys down instead of turn them on) according to society.

Of course, you get into the territory that calling someone a ***** or a pussy only has teeth because being a girl is deemed as bad by society. Hell, calling a dude a girl is an insult, when it should be a compliment!

...I'm kidding, folks. But it shouldn't be an inherent slam on someone. And I didn't bring that up randomly. I do find it interesting how much of the overall male insult bank comes down to men insulting other men for having traits that are in some way female. And I watch a lot of the people who complain about this "shaming" themselves participate in this.

Which, going back to the last time I commented in here, speaks to another fairly important thing: these arguments are almost always men vs men, and then somehow one of the groups blames women or feminism or SJWs for it.

Conversely, my current BF has a high degree of self confidence and at times he seems so laid back, we could be on the verge of a zombie apocalypse and he'd be "ehhh it's fine".

Okay, I am totally stealing your boyfriend.

[...]while the ex above does not, and uses his unfortunate situation as a means to call women "shallow" and claim they won't date him because women only date men with money, ext.

I don't know what point I was trying to make here, I guess perhaps offering an idea of how exactly a Nice Guy (TM) is born.

One of the things I find ultimately baffling is, in my experience, a significant chunk of self-proclaimed nice guys are outwardly hostile to women. Often worse than simply blaming their problems on women liking X (which is still not exactly a good thing), but I've known a lot of guys who will outright insult a woman for being a woman (or being female while doing something else that would be innocuous) or outright harass women and then turn around and wonder why women don't like them.

And I kiiiiiiiinda want to know the thought process here, because I can't believe they're thinking "I'm an abusive, misogynistic dick who hassles women. Surely they're going to drop their panties at that!"

...right?

...please, someone tell me that's not the thought process....>.<

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

We're talking about a presumed adult (he speaks about high school in the past tense) wallowing in "nice guy" nonsense. This isn't people ganging up on some awkward youth; it's explaining the situation to a grown man who apparently hasn't learned from it or developed any self-awareness since. There's a point where such obliviousness becomes attitudinal and therefore assholish.

Response was general. I don't care about his specifics, and I wasn't really addressing only you. A little selfish, but you were a jumping point for me giving my thoughts on the matter.

I can pity someone for ill-luck in matters of love while also noting they've developed a toxic worldview as a defense-mechanism because of said bad luck/ unwillingness to self-evaluate. Lastly, you lose whatever sympathy points you have when you lash out. That meme is making fun of guys who post misogynistic rants online then wonder why nice chaps like them have no luck with the ladies. The meme is not shaming any and everyone who has trouble getting a date.

Nothing on the internet really gets applied fairly. You can say the origins were something else, but I witnessed how it was applied in the appropriately themed threads on this forum, and... In my view it was treated like a rule.

People run with things, including scissors.

You're right, sex isn't some concrete dividing line, but I think it's fair to say if he was already hanging around these girls the only thing that would change by them dating would be sex or physical contact farther back on the continuum.

See, I think this is wrong. I think the level of intimacy is different between a couple and a pair of platonic friends. If it's not, I think that's a recipe for the type of confusion we're talking about. The title that is being given to the relationship is not more important than the nature of the relationship.

This is the part where I'm dismissing you, but the fact you, in an earlier post, cite MGTOW as a positive means of addressing male issue when it's at best "giving up" and more usually hysterically histrionic misogyny, I suspect our opinions on the issue may be too far apart to bridge the gap.

I didn't offer an opinion on it, I observed that it was a thing that was happening. If I say "fans of twilight really love twilight" I'm not saying I'm a fan of twilight. This is easy. Maybe I should dismiss you?

I'm happy to admit that I don't know what is best for others at all times. Those men may be helped, they may not be helped. Honestly, it's probably working on a case by case basis.

 

[Something Amyss]

Found it:

It's a pretty apt description for most peoples arguments. Honestly this image comes into relevancy more often than you'd think.

Have some internets!

It's a shame, though, in all seriousness. Because it shouldn't be an X v Y thing. Unfortunately, "man problems" seem to largely be brought up as a counter.

 

[Dazzle Novak]

snip

Fair enough in using me as a "jumping point", but you certainly understand how I could have gotten the wrong idea with you directly quoting me and all.

A thing being misapplied doesn't invalidate the original intention nor validate the new use unless you can demonstrate it's common practice. Putting toothpaste on my hot dog doesn't make it a condiment nor its purpose ambiguous. Frankly, I think you're the one misinterpreting if your takeaway is that "nice guy" is applied to all lonely goofs rather than the ones who self-identify as such while spewing their dislike of the fairer sex.

I'll agree with you that something's essence precedes its label, but I'd have to ask: why is assigning the label and formalizing a relarionship so important, then?

Describing MGTOW as "a way men are addressing their issues" is about as neutral as saying, "groups of white boys with shaved heads and steel-toed boots have been gathering to speak on the issue of race". It's not indicative of anything constructivee, so why even bring it up? It's as useful as saying, "The two sides of this argument disagree on points." Thank you for your contribution, Captain Obvious.

Yes, a lot of loons online are assuming positions of authority while disseminating pick-up artistry, misanthropy of various shades, and codified antisociality to impressionable, awkward young men seeking validation and/or life advice. This is preferable how?

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Fair enough in using me as a "jumping point", but you certainly understand how I could have gotten the wrong idea with you directly quoting me and all.

Ok.

A thing being misapplied doesn't invalidate the original intention nor validate the new use unless you can demonstrate it's common practice. Putting toothpaste on my hot dog doesn't make it a condiment nor its purpose ambiguous. Frankly, I think you're the one misinterpreting if your takeaway is that "nice guy" is applied to all lonely goofs rather than the ones who self-identify as such while spewing their dislike of the fairer sex.

I thought it was clear that it was being used as a means of gender war, at least for a period.

I haven't been on this forum much very recently, but I remember the period where people were gleefully running with "yeh, it's the guy's fault!" seemingly for every example being given.

Obviously reality lies between the extremes. This community is prone to trending hard on this kind of thing, and it's pretty ugly at times.

I'll agree with you that something's essence precedes its label, but I'd have to ask: why is assigning the label and formalizing a relarionship so important, then?

It's not, that's what I'm saying. I would say that a lot of people are engaging in courting that wouldn't say they were(or at least one party wouldn't), and that's a source of confusion.

Describing MGTOW as "a way men are addressing their issues"

Is accurate. Our opinions don't change that.

is about as neutral as saying, "groups of white boys with shaved heads and steel-toed boots have been gathering to speak on the issue of race". It's not indicative of anything constructivee, so why even bring it up? It's as useful as saying, "The two sides of this argument disagree on points." Thank you for your contribution, Captain Obvious.

Analogy is dumb. Sorry, but it is. I think maybe you've lost sight of what this thread was originally about. I was completely on topic.

Yes, a lot of loons online are assuming positions of authority while disseminating pick-up artistry, misanthropy of various shades, and codified antisociality to impressionable, awkward young men seeking validation and/or life advice. This is preferable how?

It's not an endorsement because you say it is. This is really stupid...

Things that are happening don't go away if they're not mentioned. The MGTOW thing is real, and also interesting, and also relevant to the topic of discussion.

Am I supposed to be apologetic about bringing it up? It's relevant...

 

[DonTsetsi]

I think you've confused "MRA Meeting" with "Attempt to open a shelter".

It's a natural mistake I think?

I would say that discussion and raising awareness is a big part of helping with issues, but if you want a story about a men's shelter, here you are:

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/earl-silverman-who-ran-mens-safe-house-dies-in-apparent-suicide

 

[Eclipse Dragon]

Okay, I am totally stealing your boyfriend.

Can you believe I found him on the internet?

And I kiiiiiiiinda want to know the thought process here, because I can't believe they're thinking "I'm an abusive, misogynistic dick who hassles women. Surely they're going to drop their panties at that!"

...right?

...please, someone tell me that's not the thought process....>.<

I think it hearkens back to the misconception that women like jerks, which is not true. Confidence is attractive, jerks at the very least tend to have more of that than the self proclaimed nice guys, but the nice guys instead draw the conclusion "women like jerks" rather than "women like confidence". The issue with the latter example is that it requires self evaluation.

The sad part is (at least in the case of my ex) these nice guys probably actually are very nice. He never lashed out at me when we were together, he was always thoughtful and considerate of my feelings and he was so in tune to them that even when something was wrong and I didn't say anything, he still knew I was hurting and he would do little things to try and make me feel better. If he only had a little confidence, he would have been perfect, unfortunately that's something I couldn't give him and in the end he chose to blame the world for his misfortune and wallow in his own misery, rather than push himself beyond his problems.

 

[DonTsetsi]

I think you've confused "MRA Meeting" with "Attempt to open a shelter".

It's a natural mistake I think?

I would say that discussion and raising awareness is a big part of helping with issues, but if you want a story about a men's shelter, here you are:

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/earl-silverman-who-ran-mens-safe-house-dies-in-apparent-suicide

I'm sorry... are you seriously trying to pin his suicide on, what... "SJW's"? Anti-MRA forces? Wow

Are you seriously saying I was talking about a fucking conspiracy or something?

What I'm saying is that people try to do something about men's problems but they get little support. The guy took his own life because he couldn't get even a tiny part of what the government gives to women's shelters. The real problem is that not enough people care.

It seems that once something is labelled a women's problem, men who have it are ignored.

 

[Raesvelg]

I'm sorry... are you seriously trying to pin his suicide on, what... "SJW's"? Anti-MRA forces? Wow

Well... from the article:

"Both Mr. Howitt and Mr. Matty said Mr. Silverman left a four-page suicide note blaming the government for failing to recognize male victims of domestic abuse."

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

I thought it was clear that it was being used as a means of gender war, at least for a period.

Considering that 'gender war' is hardly something people would seem to agree is a thing it'd be an amazing feat for something that depends on the notion to be 'clear'. Considering that the sides are composed of all genders and not one vs one...

I haven't been on this forum much very recently, but I remember the period where people were gleefully running with "yeh, it's the guy's fault!" seemingly for every example being given.

And is there any particular reason the guy couldn't be wrong in those cases aside from feelz that say it can't be the case?

Obviously reality lies between the extremes.

That's not true at all. That's just an emotional argument not based in reality. People feeeeeel like the middle must be right but that's no evidence, there is nothing to support the principle as accurate.

This community is prone to trending hard on this kind of thing, and it's pretty ugly at times.

My guess is prone to disagreeing with you

 

[EvilRoy]

You can hang your entire warped world view on a single theory that has been highly criticized for decades, but stop expecting me to change my view of you.

It hasn't really been criticized more or less than any other given psychological idea. The most arguments have actually been with regards to the extents to which a baseline can possibly change, and the issue of genetics vs upbringing as a root cause.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Considering that 'gender war' is hardly something people would seem to agree is a thing it'd be an amazing feat for something that depends on the notion to be 'clear'. Considering that the sides are composed of all genders and not one vs one...

When I say "I thought it was clear", I mean exactly that. It was clear in my view... The rest of the sentence is stupid in how vague it is though, point taken. What I mean is that it was turned into a "women right, men wrong" thing for many. I think much of the talk was laughable, frankly. The blind leading the blind.

I see your join date. Did you lurk much before joining? Did you witness the plague of "nice guy" threads a while back?

And is there any particular reason the guy couldn't be wrong in those cases aside from feelz that say it can't be the case?

You misunderstand. It's not that they can't be, it's that they aren't automatically. It's a perception thing, but my perception is that at the time the tone of discussion was unfair. Things were assumed that probably shouldn't have been.

That's not true at all. That's just an emotional argument not based in reality. People feeeeeel like the middle must be right but that's no evidence, there is nothing to support the principle as accurate.

Whatevs. Statements can seem more general than they really were when you remove the context they were actually in. The extremes are "men are always wrong, fuck men", and "women are always wrong, fuck women". Both of these are stupid.

Disagree?

As far as "gotcha!" moments go, this is a pretty pathetic one. I don't want to be this petty. Can we just not?

My guess is prone to disagreeing with you

I know.

 

[Lightspeaker]

I think it hearkens back to the misconception that women like jerks, which is not true. Confidence is attractive

Going off on a bit of a tangent but here's another "societal conditioning" thing. Men are expected to be forward and confident or they're viewed as lesser. Not "allowed" to be shy. But shyness in a girl is frequently presented as cute and endearing.

Sorry for hijacking your post and I understand you weren't intending to permeate a damaging expectation but I really, really dislike the whole stereotyped 'requirements' for men and women.

 

[AgedGrunt]

Men don't talk about their problems because it's socially unacceptable to do so. So men's problems are only brought up as a counter-argument because that's the only time it's acceptable to do so - to show that we too have problems, but choose not to talk about them but rather deal with them in silence, the unspoken subtext being that women should do the same. Right or wrong, that's very debatable, but the point is, men do have problems but for the most part, we don't talk about them because what the hell does whining and complaining accomplish? We want solutions, not hand-wringing.

Somehow I doubt anyone but the people bringing it up at that time finds it more acceptable to do that. It's also not a solution, it's the epitome of whining...

One of the few places guys from all over the world wander to and talk about their problems are chan message boards. You know, those dark corners of the internet that most people are convinced are full of whiny, loser, male virgin sociopaths who are non-functional to society and whom people wish would shut up and go away?

Someone just explained to you how many men need an opportunity to even mention that they have problems too, yet they're conditioned to dealing with them on their own, in silence. They showed how that makes men look at a climate of discussion and can see that as "whining" instead of treating our problems, and you call that reaction "the epitome of whining" and shove them back to either deal with their crap or find a quiet corner to talk about their problems.

A few people here show why men struggle to talk about their problems and even why we see this counter-argument phenomenon. Maybe it's easier to attack suffering men as apathetic, whiny nuisances interjecting in other peoples' issues (how ironically toxic a thing to do), but apparently no one analyzes (or cares) why this happens. It's like whining about whining.

 

[Animyr]

It's a choice they make.

The whole point in my last post is that it's a choice they're encouraged to make, pushed to make. Fathers, meanwhile, are not encouraged to drop from the workforce, though their children need them just as much.

therefore there will always be an absolute wage gap.

Except the wage gap appears for most women even before they quit to raise children (thus making the gap even larger), in nearly every profession. I was careful to address this argument in my big post. Did you simply not read all of it?

Women make different life choices than men not because of patriarchy but because of biology

You're completely ignoring nurture and culture here.

Again, it used to be common knowledge that women were, by nature, too weak willed and emotional to accept any social responsibilities outside of childcare (voting, authority over men, etc.)

It used to be common knowledge that blacks were biologically simple minded and childlike, subservient by nature. They're happiest when they're working hard, with whites to lead them. People were so certain of this they went to war for it.

Where did these self-evident biological truths go? In the trash bin, because when the culture changed, the people changed too. Funny that.

And its happening again. Even today, it's widely accepted that women just don't have heads for math or engineering. They're usually softer, more nurturing, less logical then men. Right? But as I noted, even scientists who agree with you have been compelled by the data to accept that the gap in that regard is narrowing and will probably disappear. Has there been a biological change among females? Of course not. It's now more culturally acceptable and desirable for a woman to be good at math.

Likewise, as Lightknight notes, women outnumber men in teaching, childcare, and social work. Is this purely because men choose not to do those things? Or does the fact that they're disfavored in those positions, which are culturally seen as "womanly" have something to do with it? What about the fact that men who are interested in caring for children tend to be seen as pedophiles? Is that a biological fact too? How about the recent rise in single fathers? Does that mean men are biologically changing?

Biology plays a role, certainly. There are tendencies. But culture is every bit as powerful a mover too, and conflating ones culture to fundamental biological imperatives is a dangerous and arrogant thing to do. This is especially true when we still have powerful cultural forces telling both genders what their places are (traditional values, anyone?). Why would such forces be necessary if it was purely biological instinct?

But I guess foisting it all off on fundamental biology is a good way to shut down the conversation, huh? Can't have pesky discussions about change or reform if change is biologically impossible.