White Male Victims: Boo-Fucking-Hoo

[hadespussercats]

And can we stop using the word "gender" as if it refers to people? The word is "sex", as in "people of both sexes", or "the male sex or female sex".

"Gender". What a load of bollox.

Gender refers to behavior, and personal and social identity.

Sex refers to physical / biological characteristics.

When you come up with a better word for the first-- so good it'll catch on after thirty-odd years of the other one being in common parlance-- maybe we'll stop using it.

Gender is a grammatical term.

It was coopted by the so-called equality movement, primarily because they were squeamish about the word sex. All the rest was added afterwards - in terms of the behaviour, and personal and social identity stuff.

It is commonly used today to refer to male and female. You see it on forms regularly - Gender: Male/Female. It is used in this very thread in that manner.

It's usage in this context just rubs me up the wrong way. It seems clumsy to me, like a square peg rammed into a round hole. It is as bad, to me, as Xhe and all that other bollox.

"Gender" was once solely a grammatical term. It was borrowed a long time ago to fill in a space in our language for ideas of sex that relate more to identity than to physical characteristics. There's no other word for what "gender" has come to mean.

I don't mind being flexible with language, when it yields such useful results.

Still, I also get irritated when people confuse the two terms. For instance, back when I was pregnant, people would always ask me if we'd found out the baby's gender. Saying, "Well, it's a boy-- but his gender's still up for grabs," got me a lot of looks. But it was true-- for all I knew at the time, I could have been brewing a little trans woman in there.

Only a little over a year in, I already have a pretty strong sense that he's a boy, inside and out. But it's smart not to take these things for granted.

[Coito ergo sum]

No, see, what I was hoping to convey in several of my posts is that, regardless of who is the goofy friend and who is the sexy beloved (whichever is male or female, or both or neither or whatever), there seems to be this notion in many parts of the culture that the good, sweet, social misfit person "deserves" to win the heart of the star.

Yes, I got that. And, it's understandable in some respects. It's a different perspective to view a relationship from the outside as opposed to the inside. We've all had relationships and ended them despite people from outside being mystified as to why --" she was so pretty and nice, why did you break up with her." It's that kind of thing. From the outside, if a person is a good guy/gal, and we see someone dumping the good guy/gal for someone perceived as less of a good guy/gal, then it's natural to root for the good guy/gal. It doesn't mean it's not also understood that love is not something that will always bloom, just because someone is a good guy/gal.

I would phrase it as Duckie being a "deserving" guy, as opposed Andie being something that Duckie deserves, specifically. Of course, people aren't prizes or awards that another person deserves in the sense of being entitled to. But, that doesn't mean that Duckie can't be such a nice guy in a sad sack sort of way that we wish he got Andie in the end. And, it explains why we are happy for Duckie when the hottie girl eyes him up and down at the end, because it gives all of us who have felt like the nerd and odd-man-out a feeling that we can find another person to be with in the end.

No, he or she or xie does not. The star has a right to feel what the star feels, just like the goofy person has a right to their feelings.

of course that is true.

Still, feelings aren't the point when it comes to what makes someone seem predatory-- behavior does. Duckie isn't wrong to feel hurt by the rejection, or to long to change Andy's mind. But some of the actions he takes are wrong. For me, pulling that alarm is a standout example. If a friend of mine told me that there was someone hanging around his work, who kept pulling the fire alarm so he'd have to go talk to her, I'd be frightened for him. Turns out in this case, Andy wasn't worried, just irritated. I think that Duckie caught a lucky break there, though.

He didn't "keep" pulling the fire alarm. He pulled it once, didn't he?

Predatory doesn't mean "creepy" - they're not synonyms. Predatory is a particularly strong word to use. Calling Duckie that is to consider him an aggressive hunting animal, that intends to do harm to his "prey." Nothing in that entire relationship, fire alarms included, can suggest that Duckie wanted to hurt Andie, right?

You could argue (and I think you have) that whether a gambit works or not determines whether or not it's creepy. I tend to think it's more the knowledge of the person doing an act about the recipient. Like, if some guy I met once at a party showed up outside my window holding up a boom box Lloyd Dawbler-style, I would be frightened, and would call the cops. But if J did it, after we had a fight, I'd probably try to jump him. In a good way.

Sure, all the facts and circumstances into it and whether it "seems" creepy or "seems" predatory (not the same thing, of course) , is in the eye of the beholder.

This might prove your point, in that Duckie knew Andy since they were little, and had a sense of what her reception would be. I could see that, though i think his lust for her blunted his ability to understand her refusals. Regardless, he did figure it out eventually. Because Duckies a good sort, generally.

Sure, he probably was blinded, or if not blinded he was hopeful and longing for a way to change her heart.

[hadespussercats]

Well. We're going round and round.

Incidentally, Duckie pulls the alarm several times, and there are hints that he's done so on days not appearing in the film.

As for creepy versus predatory-- I don't see what makes someone creepy in this circumstance, if not shades of predatory, stalker-ish behavior.

If you're saing Duckie deserves some girl, just not Andy, i might agree. No actually, strike that-- I think i can feel for him, and hope he finds someone who likes him for who he is. That's different from saying he deserves any of it.

Because he's the tie-in to the "nice-guy" phenomenon discussed in many feminist online environments-- there is a stripe of guy (certainly not all men-- nowhere near all men) who thinks that because they see themselves as fun and kind and loving, that they deserve love in return. When they don't get what they think they deserve, they lash out.

You are absolutely right when you point out that such guys are not, in fact, 'nice guys.' That is in fact the point of these discussions.

So when a well-worn trope like, "Nice guys finish last," Or "she'd rather be with an XC messed with our curse words than a nice guy like me," get trotted out, they often serve as red flags for people who are douchebags but who consider themselves so nice.

And yes, there is a very similar situation, with the sexes reversed. Discussing one does not preclude the other.

There are people who direct a lot of anger at Andy for not choosing Duckie. She's a bitch who didn't know what she had, she's a fool who chose a rich dick instead of a good friend. This anger is unreasonable-- as you and I have discussed. And you've experienced the same situation, it sounds, with the sexes reversed. So you know it's unreasonable.

But it's this sort of resentment from the so-called nice guys, who are not in fact all that nice, that leads to these kinds of articles being written.

[tattuchu]

I thought gender was the proper term to identify male or female. I thought "sex" was a more archaic version of same. But that was just my uninformed impression

[Coito ergo sum]

Well. We're going round and round.

I think we are in basic agreement.

Incidentally, Duckie pulls the alarm several times, and there are hints that he's done so on days not appearing in the film.

Ah, did not recall that. That is a bit immature on his part, if he does that sort of thing. You're right about that -- he's acting crazy.

As for creepy versus predatory-- I don't see what makes someone creepy in this circumstance, if not shades of predatory, stalker-ish behavior.

Well, a predator wants to kill/harm its prey. Duckie is just a lovestruck misfit, who holds on too tight because he is losing the girl he's been dreaming about for years.

If you're saing Duckie deserves some girl, just not Andy, i might agree. No actually, strike that-- I think i can feel for him, and hope he finds someone who likes him for who he is. That's different from saying he deserves any of it.

No - I'm not saying he deserves a girl, as if a girl is a prize. I'm saying I can understand why people would consider him "deserving" -- someone who is in general a good egg, a sad sack. We feel sorry for him. He wants Andie so bad, and is just all over the place, powerless. He can't do anything except ride his bike by her house and call her on the phone because he can't stop thinking about her. He thinks he loves her and knows he is losing any chance he thought he had.

Because he's the tie-in to the "nice-guy" phenomenon discussed in many feminist online environments-- there is a stripe of guy (certainly not all men-- nowhere near all men) who thinks that because they see themselves as fun and kind and loving, that they deserve love in return. When they don't get what they think they deserve, they lash out.

If they "lash out" then they aren't "Nice Guys." In reality, the "nice guy" is a guy who does all the "right things." He is nice, kind, giving, treats women with respect, doesn't play games, etc., and after doing what "on paper" seems like all the right things he should be doing, he sees the woman he cares for go for a guy who appears to be a dick, treating her "like shit" and doing none of the things that women say they want in a guy.

This is the frustrating part for guys.

But, that doesn't mean, of course, that they are entitled to a particular woman. They don't. Nevertheless, a nice guy who really does all the right things is bound to garner sympathy from third parties for the very reason that he is a "nice guy." In this scenario, most people would like to see a woman end up with someone who is nice to her, than someone who is not. However, love does not work that way all the time because love isn't based on reason or "on paper" scoring who does all the right things.

You are absolutely right when you point out that such guys are not, in fact, 'nice guys.' That is in fact the point of these discussions.

Sure, but then the article should be warning women against manipulative jackasses. And, the article goes too far, as these Jezebel and Apelust writers often do when they lump nearly all men into the same category. Like the blurb where they caution that not all men are asshole sociopaths or something to that effect. Some aren't all that bad is the qualifier.

So when a well-worn trope like, "Nice guys finish last," Or "she'd rather be with an XC messed with our curse words than a nice guy like me," get trotted out, they often serve as red flags for people who are douchebags but who consider themselves so nice.

Well, I can't deny that some guys who think they're nice guys, aren't.

However, I would not go so far as to say that most guys aren't nice, and I wouldn't say that most guys who think of themselves as nice are really douchebags. Most of us ARE nice guys. Most of us don't want to hurt women. Most of us don't feel "entitled" to women, or that women are "bitches" because they have boyfriends, etc.

And yes, there is a very similar situation, with the sexes reversed. Discussing one does not preclude the other.

There are people who direct a lot of anger at Andy for not choosing Duckie. She's a bitch who didn't know what she had, she's a fool who chose a rich dick instead of a good friend. This anger is unreasonable-- as you and I have discussed. And you've experienced the same situation, it sounds, with the sexes reversed. So you know it's unreasonable.

But it's this sort of resentment from the so-called nice guys, who are not in fact all that nice, that leads to these kinds of articles being written.

I never heard anyone express anger at Andy for making her choice, but that's not to say that there haven't been people who have. I just haven't heard that. I don't think she's a fool. Even Duckie at the end says "he's not like the others," and Blaine gets his moment of redemption at the end. Blaine was an asshole when he backed out of the prom and started ignoring Andy - but it was a personal failing of Blaines - he caved to pressure from his friends, but then he ended up going to the prom alone. He then admitted responsibility at the end, and made no excuses, and wished her the best. Then Duckie gets his "reward" at the end, when he becomes the object of affection from another girl....as an aside, when I first saw that movie, the first thing I thought of at that ending scene was how awful it must have been for whoever was taking that blonde who called Duckie over --- I mean, people generally don't go to proms alone. They have dates. So, hopefully, that girl's date was being a douche and deserved to be dumped for Duckie on the spot. LOL. Either that, or hopefully she was like Blaine and showed up alone -- but, given her level of attractiveness, odds are she'd have a date.

These articles get written, I think, mainly for illegitimate reasons. They read as man-bashing screeds, which paint us all as guys who call women bitches and cunts for having the temerity to have a boyfriend or to turn us down for dates. That is why they garner a hostile reaction from men, because like anyone else we don't like being lumped in with assholes.

[Coito ergo sum]

LOL - the "nice guy" discussion reminded me a radio guy that I haven't heard about many years:

[hadespussercats]

CES wrote: "Blaine was an sexy minx when he backed out of the prom and started ignoring Andy"

Yes. Yes he was. The minxiest of sexy minxes.

CES wrote: "However, I would not go so far as to say that most guys aren't nice, and I wouldn't say that most guys who think of themselves as nice are really douchebags. Most of us ARE nice guys. Most of us don't want to hurt women. Most of us don't feel "entitled" to women, or that women are "bitches" because they have boyfriends, etc."

I hope you don't think that's what I was saying. I was referring to non-nice "nice guys"-- who I was explicit in characterizing as a small subset of the population at large.

CES wrote: "Well, a predator wants to kill/harm its prey. Duckie is just a lovestruck misfit, who holds on too tight because he is losing the girl he's been dreaming about for years."

Ah. I see what you're saying. Yes. I agree. I guess if you didn't know Duckie your whole life, and understood he was harmless, you might not know that, though, and might find his actions really frightening. That's not the case in the movie scenario, though-- Andy knows him well, and just finds him irritating.

As for Blaine-- I don't even think he was bowing to peer pressure-- he and Andy had some really lousy dates, and she was acting really weird and volatile around him. Plus she had a big chip on her shoulder about his background. Even though he liked her a lot and they had a lot of chemistry, I don't blame him for backing off a bit and thinking things over.

I have to confess, I still haven't read the article in question. I've read so many of these types of articles, at Pandagon, feministe, jezebel, etc., I couldn't be bothered to trudge through another one. I understand the basic underlying premise of the "Nice Guys" fallacy. I'd like to read something new.

[hadespussercats]

You know, I just thought of another "nice guy gets a pass" movie scenario-- "Philadelphia Story"

I know a lot of people who think Katherine Hepburn chose the wrong guy. In fact, I used to be one of them. But then i realized, "Wait. it's a choice between Jimmy Stewart, or getting stupped regularly by Cary Grant. Um. This is a choice?"

[Coito ergo sum]

CES wrote: "Blaine was an sexy minx when he backed out of the prom and started ignoring Andy"

Yes. Yes he was. The minxiest of sexy minxes.

LOL -- I thought more of him when he was bangin' Jacqueline Bisset in Class.

CES wrote: "However, I would not go so far as to say that most guys aren't nice, and I wouldn't say that most guys who think of themselves as nice are really douchebags. Most of us ARE nice guys. Most of us don't want to hurt women. Most of us don't feel "entitled" to women, or that women are "bitches" because they have boyfriends, etc."

I hope you don't think that's what I was saying. I was referring to non-nice "nice guys"-- who I was explicit in characterizing as a small subset of the population at large.

Oh, I know you're not generalizing like that. I'm saying the author of the Jezebel article is, and ApeLusters do.

CES wrote: "Well, a predator wants to kill/harm its prey. Duckie is just a lovestruck misfit, who holds on too tight because he is losing the girl he's been dreaming about for years."

Ah. I see what you're saying. Yes. I agree. I guess if you didn't know Duckie your whole life, and understood he was harmless, you might not know that, though, and might find his actions really frightening. That's not the case in the movie scenario, though-- Andy knows him well, and just finds him irritating.

As for Blaine-- I don't even think he was bowing to peer pressure-- he and Andy had some really lousy dates, and she was acting really weird and volatile around him. Plus she had a big chip on her shoulder about his background. Even though he liked her a lot and they had a lot of chemistry, I don't blame him for backing off a bit and thinking things over.

Oh, I do. Well, at least the way he did it. You can't ask a girl to the prom and then just "back out" without telling her, which is what he did. He left her hanging until she pushed him on it. He wouldn't return her calls. I mean, if he was going to back out, he needed to do so in advance enough for her to get another date, and if he committed and couldn't back out in a reasonable length of time ahead of the prom, then he should have honored his commitment.

I also think that it was that asshole James Spader that put the pressure on him by saying if he pursued Andy seriously, that he wouldn't have a friend left. Spader was going to see to it that everybody shunned Blaine. Blaine was scared. Then he realized he made a big mistake.

I have to confess, I still haven't read the article in question. I've read so many of these types of articles, at Pandagon, feministe, jezebel, etc., I couldn't be bothered to trudge through another one. I understand the basic underlying premise of the "Nice Guys" fallacy. I'd like to read something new.

I used to subscribe to the nice guy syndrome theory, but I came to learn that it is a fallacy and that it is not the "niceness" that turns women off - its sycophants and guys that lack confidence, cling to tight, and act needy. The "nice guy" confuses that kind of behavior for being "nice." Once the truly nice guy learns to harmonize being nice, caring, kind, and respectful to women with being confident, strong, comfortable in one's own skin, passionate and happy, the girls start hanging around like cats in heat. The trick, however, is being able to do that -- it's difficult for most people.

The Tom Leykis stuff, like in that audio clip that I posted above, is just a way to get girls without being nice. It's a short cut, because women can often confuse men who are "being an asshole" with "confidence, self-assuredness...." etc. Someone who is being an asshole comes across as someone who is the opposite of needy and all that. So, even though they are not "nice" they have for all appearances the second piece of the equation (the confidence and self assuredness, passion, etc.). Whereas, the nice guy without the second piece of the equation often comes across as needy and clingy. Once the nice guy gets the second part of the equation down, he too will be able to attract women by the bucket load.

[Coito ergo sum]

You know, I just thought of another "nice guy gets a pass" movie scenario-- "Philadelphia Story"

I know a lot of people who think Katherine Hepburn chose the wrong guy. In fact, I used to be one of them. But then i realized, "Wait. it's a choice between Jimmy Stewart, or getting stupped regularly by Cary Grant. Um. This is a choice?"

Ya see -- there it is! It boils down to the cocks!

That's why human males have the largest cocks relative to their bodies of any primate, because they've been sexually selected by women for cock size. A secondary characteristic of guys with big cocks is confidence. No fear in swinging that thing around if it's bigger than the average, right? So, women equate confidence with a big cock. Ergo, confident men get more tail, because the women are expecting huge cock.

Thus, the "nice guy", if he is lacking in confidence and is hence needy and clingy, this implies to the perusing female a distinct lack of penis.

Extrapolating this to our analysis of the Duckman -- when he is needy and clingy, ringing fire alarms, driving his bike back and forth, he comes across as severely nervous and lacking in confidence. This implies that he would not be comfortable swinging his penis around. Blaine, on the other hand, is rich kid, BMW drivin', confident at other rich people parties. His confidence quotient is exponentially increased, however, because Andy is very nervous and uncomfortable around Blaine, especially in public, because she feels embarrased, etc. So, relatively speaking, Andy unconsciously suspects Blaine's Johnson is gargantuan, with a set of billiard balls to go along with it.

So, using our powers of deduction, we easily see that Duckman will not get in Andy's pants, due the perception that he is hung like an elevator button. Blaine will get to throw her the high hard one, because he is perceived as packing 70 mm Howitzer in his pants.

It's elementary, my dear Hades.

EDIT TO ADD: This also explains why at the end the Duckman suddenly becomes attractive to the blonde hottie whose panties moisten at the mere sight of him. Why? Because dressed like he was at the prom -- with ducktail hairdo, wild and crazy tuxedo, weird "duckman" shoes, and all that -- I mean - to walk into the prom dressed like that -- one would have to have a confidence quotient times 10. Most people would expect to be beaten up if they walked into a high school prom like that. Not the Duckman. He walked in, head held high, and was in full confidence mode as events went down at the prom. So, from the blonde's perspective, she would unconsciously suspect the Duckman would have some serious muscle under the hood. It's evolution in action!

[Coito ergo sum]

You know, I just thought of another "nice guy gets a pass" movie scenario-- "Philadelphia Story"

I know a lot of people who think Katherine Hepburn chose the wrong guy. In fact, I used to be one of them. But then i realized, "Wait. it's a choice between Jimmy Stewart, or getting stupped regularly by Cary Grant. Um. This is a choice?"

LOL -- I was trying to think of some other movies.

What about Princess Bride? Buttercup chooses true love over being a princess! Wesley is the quintessential nice guy! All this "As you wish..." stuff! WTF!? But, I guess nice guys that look like Carey Elwes don't have much trouble with da wominz.

You know what the worst one is, though? Sweet Home Alabama. I mean, can Reese Witherspoon's character be more fickle and horrid? She's hot, of course, which makes it all o.k, but for crying out loud... she couldn't have been more unappealing personalitywise...

But, maybe the classic is the TV series Happy Days. I mean -- all the chicks fell for The Fonz. All he had to do was stand there in front of the juke box and chicks would swarm around him two at a time.

[orpheus]

Who's Duckie?

This is from a movie, right? I didn't see it. Does that make me privileged or does it make me oppressed?

[Bella Fortuna]

But, maybe the classic is the TV series Happy Days. I mean -- all the chicks fell for The Fonz. All he had to do was stand there in front of the juke box and chicks would swarm around him two at a time.

Those perpetually poked-out thumbs were clearly trying to make up for something in the trouser department...

[Coito ergo sum]

This image on Jezebel struck me:



It's above an article which exposes the latest trick that men are using to oppress women. Now, according to Jezebel, men are manipulating women by telling women how awful and horrible we are, and how much we suck. This ostensible admission of guilt is not "really" an admission. it's just a way to get women to stop yelling at us.

But, I ask you to look at that image again.

Isn't it weird that that image - that kind of image is so ingrained that we really don't see anything surprising or "wrong" with this guy enduring what appears to be a sound verbal thrashing -- like from a very angry mother, dressing down her middle school boy who just took something that didn't belong to him, or got a D on his report card for failing to do his homework all month.

What would Jezebel think of that picture if the roles were reversed? Wouldn't it be called "verbal abuse" if the roles were reversed?

As Jessica Valenti pointed out last week, "the problem isn't that women are trying to do too much, it's that men aren't doing nearly enough." Valenti was referring to the reality that men are still slacking on housework and childcare, but she could just have easily been talking about the ways in which men try to deflect women's criticism and anger. Just as guys are perfectly capable of washing dishes and changing diapers, they are also capable of arguing fairly, as equals, without retreating to manipulative self-deprecation of themselves and their sex. If we're going to get any closer to "having it all" (or just "having a life") we need to ask men to drop both the gaslighting and the self-loathing and show up as adults.

So, not only do we slack off on our responsibilities -- we argue like children, and we "gaslight" and "self-loathe" as means to manipulate women into not dressing us down for our "shortcomings."

I mean -- really?

[aspire1670]

This image on Jezebel struck me:



It's above an article which exposes the latest trick that men are using to oppress women. Now, according to Jezebel, men are manipulating women by telling women how awful and horrible we are, and how much we suck. This ostensible admission of guilt is not "really" an admission. it's just a way to get women to stop yelling at us.

But, I ask you to look at that image again.

Isn't it weird that that image - that kind of image is so ingrained that we really don't see anything surprising or "wrong" with this guy enduring what appears to be a sound verbal thrashing -- like from a very angry mother, dressing down her middle school boy who just took something that didn't belong to him, or got a D on his report card for failing to do his homework all month.

What would Jezebel think of that picture if the roles were reversed? Wouldn't it be called "verbal abuse" if the roles were reversed?

As Jessica Valenti pointed out last week, "the problem isn't that women are trying to do too much, it's that men aren't doing nearly enough." Valenti was referring to the reality that men are still slacking on housework and childcare, but she could just have easily been talking about the ways in which men try to deflect women's criticism and anger. Just as guys are perfectly capable of washing dishes and changing diapers, they are also capable of arguing fairly, as equals, without retreating to manipulative self-deprecation of themselves and their sex. If we're going to get any closer to "having it all" (or just "having a life") we need to ask men to drop both the gaslighting and the self-loathing and show up as adults.

So, not only do we slack off on our responsibilities -- we argue like children, and we "gaslight" and "self-loathe" as means to manipulate women into not dressing us down for our "shortcomings."

I mean -- really?

Well, no one could ever accuse you of manipulating women, you've always been too busy typing with one hand.